Disabled 'deserve' the joy of sex.

ooh messed up sentence - meant few want to be fucked by strangers and none want to be fucked by strangers for a pittance.

this supply, demand issue is the crux really. there will always be way more men wanting to fuck women for money than there will be women who want to be fucked for money therefore it will always be about coercing the vulnerable.

also there will always be way more men who want to fuck someone for a measly sum than there will be ones who want to go to an expensive 'escort' and definitely way less women who want to be fucked for a pittance by mean, horrible men than men who want to fuck them.

there will also be loads of men who specifically want to fuck someone poor, coerced and powerless because that's the kick for them.

etc.

very few women willingly want to be no one wants to be fucked by ten strangers in a night. zero women want to be fucked by ten strangers a night and earn a pittance.

Because the service someone is providing is sexual, it doesn't mean that the buyer is entitled to mistreat the seller or indeed try and get more in the way of goods and services than was agreed. In a world where sex work was understood and valued, the sex worker abused by a client would get justice not 'Oh well what do you expect in that line of work?'

This is the thing though isn't it. Personally I don't believe that you will ever get sex work to be understood and valued like that while we live in a patriarchal society. And I simply don't believe that there are that many happy, healthy sex workers out there. Certainly not enough to meet demand, which is why as long as prostitution exists, it will be made up primarily by victims.

I know you've spent a lot of time thinking about this and you have a lot to say on it that makes sense and has changed some of my attitudes about some aspects, but I will never agree with you that prostitution can be made safe through legalisation. But I respectfully agree to disagree.

If sex work were properly percieved and sex workers properly treated, their clients would no more be operating under the assumption that they could do what they like as they were paying, than the clients of any other professional. You're not entitled to punch your hairdresser just because you are paying him/her, nor your accountant nor the person who pulls your pint or wraps your burger.
Because the service someone is providing is sexual, it doesn't mean that the buyer is entitled to mistreat the seller or indeed try and get more in the way of goods and services than was agreed. In a world where sex work was understood and valued, the sex worker abused by a client would get justice not 'Oh well what do you expect in that line of work?'

And the sex workers who speak out about having chosen the profession and not being victims, their message is not so much 'Everyone should do the same job as me' but 'If you are doing this job you should be as content in it as I am, and if you are not happy, then you are being abused and mistreated and should seek help. Sex work should not be a horrible experience'.

I think that's a more helpful message than 'Every sex worker is a victim no matter what s/he feels because every customer is a violent evil bastard.'

The abuse of women is never justified.

The only women who 'choose' prostitution are the very tiny minority who like Elliot Spitzers escort earn thousands an hour (she was charging 3000 dollars an hour) to do men who you'd probably do anyway (if your earning that much you can afford to be discerning).

The vast majority of women in prostitution are trafficked/drugged and forced into it because the pimps can't find anyone to willingly condemn themselves to such a miserable existence. To have the government tolerate the abuse of vulnerable women is bad enough, to have them directly fund it is outrageous.

Shame on any society that allows that.

Just to clarify, that doesn't mean that I condemn any woman who works as a prostitute, whether that's voluntarily or as a result of desperation/coercion. While we live in a man's world it's a survival strategy borne of desperation for most, and possibly a legitimate career choice for the tiny minority.

What I want to see is an end to the assumption that men have a right to do whatever they want, in whatever way they please, regardless of physical or mental harm, simply because they've handed over some cash.

The thing is SGB I can accept quite happily that there will be women out there who could quite happily have sex with 20 people out there in a day and not only come to no great harm but actively enjoy it. For someone who's never been mistreated or hurt during sex, someone for whom sex is simply another recreational activity, that would make perfect sense actually. Why not get paid for something you enjoy doing?

But I have trouble accepting that this represents the 'norm' for either prostitutes or for their punters. Every piece of evidence out there suggests the opposite.

Given what we know about the number of prostitutes who have come from under-aged and abused backgrounds, and the proportion that have a dependency on drugs or suffer from MH issues, it's quite clear that the vast majority do not have the background and free-spirited approach to sex I described in my first paragraph. For every 'happy hooker' out there, there are many many more unhappy and traumatised ones.

Then let's look at the end users. Among them the number of rapists and abusers are completely disproportionately represented. Many choose to go to prostitues because they know that few sexually healthy women would allow them to perform the acts they want to do and they can't be bothered to take the more respectful approach of building a relationship with a group of like-minded people where such sexual practises are normal. Some choose prostitutes simply because they want to hurt someone and know these women are unlikely to fight back or go to the police.

Even though I'm sure there are women out there for whom prostitution on their own terms is a lucrative career option that they enjoy and thrive from, I can't sanction it when the effect is to condone the whole industry when most in that industry are suffering beyond all belief. No amount of legislation will ever change that, because there will always be a huge discrepancy between supply and demand.

I would genuinely rather have the penises.

I also suspect that the vast majority of sex work in the UK involves penetration with a penis, with the person with the penis doing the paying.

exceptionally skilled?

Most people who are exceptionally skilled do not choose to work as prostitutes.

I am not sure that the average person who uses prostitutes is demanding "exceptional skills", I think it is a little more basic than that.

Saf: Not all sex involves penetration with a penis. Not all sex work involves penetration with a penis. And honestly, not everyone finds the idea of being penetrated with a penis that much of a big deal. I would far rather be penetrated with a penis than clean a suppurating wound.

Removing the cruelty, exploitation and coercion from sex work is something there is not going to be a quick fix for. Removing cruelty, exploitation and coercion from the world is not going to be a quick fix. But raising awareness that sex for money should only take place with the person recieving the money being regarded as honourable, worthy of respect and exceptionally skilled might be a start.

i think 'johns' is used because john is a common name, it's your average man on the street not someone remarkable or a tiny minority and there are always more johns behind him in the queue iyswim.

it is the faceless endless stream of men wanting to stick their cock into another human being for money and not caring what that means for those who are oppressed into serving his want.

it also reflects the fact that they get to preserve their anonymity in the process, nothing intimate is taken from them and they are not put in the spotlight for their behaviour - they remain just another faceless john.

I call them rapists, but let's not split hairs, eh

johns - punters - think maybe they call them 'tricks' in america?

what other jobs require children to be abused, runaways to be given crack and gotten hooked, pimps, etc for basic recruitment?

you know there's a huge recession on - people are crying out for work - hundreds of applicants for minimum wage burger flipping ffs. yet still recruiting enough fuck holes for johns requires the grooming of vulnerable children, violent pimps and hard drugs.

no it doesn't compare to any other job/service/paid transaction.

the reality is if you say prostitution should be legal - buying women should be legal then you are approving all of that because the demand for it will always outstrip by a mile the amount of willing, healthy and mentally sound women who want to do it. so either it stops or there will always be children caught in it, trafficking, rape, drugs, violence etc. it is just part of the deal.

Puff, "Johns" are abusers of women

they deserve a special kind of contempt

"John" is a mildly contemptuous name to use

do you have some more descriptive ones ?

Swallowedafly, why do you keep saying Johns?

The day the pimps go hunting for fresh meat outside the school gates of Eton and Westminster is the day I might reconsider.
While the average age of starting prostitution is 14, and 80% of prostitutes have a history of abuse and the vast majority are addicts, I'm sticking with the basic analysis that the 'sex' industry is shite.

solid none of those services involve being penetrated. you don't stick your cock in the hairdresser. you're talking about penetrating someone - it is different to another job - no other job entails letting people enter and use your body for money.

and as much as everyone seems to know a happy, clever hooker who prostituted her way through uni there are not enough of those people to meet the needs (and tastes) of the demand - the demand requires abused teens, drug addicts, trafficked women, coercion and abuse - there aren't enough middle class women dead keen to take up a career in prostitution to meet the number of johns who feel entitled to enter women's bodies at will. so prostitution equals abuse of vulnerable women, always has and always will unless you're all about to go and volunteer to shag the thousands of johns out there - fat, thin, old, smelly, nice, nasty, into anal, diseased, clean etc etc etc. no picking and choosing and just doing nice work in hotels with middle class business men but ALL of the johns who demand to be serviced by fuck holes.

i don't see you all volunteering so in the meantime there will be the exploitation of poor and vulnerable females to meet the neverending queue of johns. prostitutes have to be made - there is no huge queue of liberated women auditioning for the parts.

Sex work should be a job that people freely choose to do. And sexworkers should be respected whether they are of the healer/therapist type or the 'entertainer' type. Sex is neither sacred nor revolting, it doesn't have to involve any emotions other than mutual goodwill. Paying someone to engage in sexual activity is no more inherently aggressive towards them than paying them to cut your hair, scrub your toilet or put ointment on your piles.
If this bill was one that suggested the state pay (for instance) for the disabled to have aromatherapy massages it would probably have got through even though massage is not viewed as a necessity, it's just something that some people find comforting and enjoyable. SO is sex.

"Paying for sex is just a different way of exerting the same control, since the person with the money calls the shots."

I ask again, as I asked lower down. How does this differ from paying for any other service in that the person paying calls the shots? Except that sometimes the person offering the service and charging the fee (especially in a sellers market) can also 'call the shots'. In a mutual contract. Plenty of escorts etc define thier own terms and are clear about what they will and will not do, what is required of the client etc.

I was at university with someone who made money through selling sex. She was studying law (and is now successful in her chosen branch of work, I see her quoted or cited as an expert in the newspaper sometimes). She had made a decision to separate herself from the prevailing moral currency attached to sex (that it was too special to sell / too demeaning a job / or made her a victim of oppression) and to sell the service of sex on her terms. We all did different jobs to see us through our student years, things we don't do now (mine was washing up on the night shift in a hotel), she chose sex.

Women pay for sex. I don't know how many, but there is a business in male escorts. Possibly more women would pay for sex if it wasn't socially such a taboo for women and they didn't feel embarrassed or self conscious about it. Women pay for sex in other ways - holidays to places where they can meet a local 'boyfriend'. So how can the paying for sex always be about male oppression of women?

Sorry to leave now but I am off to a caravan

THing is, there are women who choose sex work because they see themselves as healers and therapists. This does happen and it's something that should be encouraged. The insistence by some people that it's not possible for a sex worker to be anything other than a victim does no one any favours, not even the people trapped and exploited as non-willing sex workers.

And no, the argument that a woman who wants to help and heal through sex should not accept money for doing so is both invalid and sexist. It's because women are percieved as loving and giving and dutiful that vital work designated as 'women's work' such as caring for the sick is so badly paid; HCPs can love their work but that doesn't mean they should do it free.

Feminists don't talk about women being 'demeaned' by prostitution. That's a patriarchal notion and the misrepresentation of feminists as seeing sex as 'shameful' is one of the weapons used by the sex industry against feminism. Feminists focus on the actual harms done to women by prostitution and other forms of coerced sex - the physical, as well as the emotional.