5 questions for people who advocate legal prostitution

Grimbletart, yes, that and the reminder that there was no one who was willing to have sex with me out of desire. Hardly a turn-on. It honestly bewilders me how men manage to get past that.

No matter how many times, in how many ways, we discuss prostitution, I keep coming back to the same question. In our current society it is very easy to get laid. Subscriptions to a few 'shagaholic' websites and regular nights out don't cost any more than visiting prostitutes.

So it can't just be about sex. It absolutely has to be about the ability to 'order' one's desires - about power & control.

Tangoman seems not to have noticed that, unlike fruit flies & mice, he has conscious awareness with the ability to choose whether or not to act on his instincts. My sympathies, Tango; it must be very difficult to stay out of prison with all the random rapes, assaults & thefts you commit due to your disability.

The idea of imposing my desire for sex on a man who didn't feel desire for me is utterly toe-curlingly awful. It really amazes me that men who use prostitutes don't feel that, at all.

YY. I would feel embarrassed and mortified to think a man was only having sex with me for money. It would be treating the man as an object available to service my needs without any respect for his humanity. I can only conclude that men who buy sex from women lack any respect for that woman and her humanity and completely lack any empathy or compassion whatsoever.

A lot of punters say that the women need the money, so they are providing something she needs. If I thought a man was so desperate for money he was prepared to shag me for it I would give him the money and let him off the shag. No one should have to have sex - an act most people consider to be linked to love and desire (ideally) or at least a liking for the person, because they are financially desperate. It's inhumane.

"but to claim all gender differences are the result of socialization and that biology has no role is a bit extreme IMHO" Not that anyone was doing that but why is it extreme? The fact is we don't know how much socialisation affects behaviour, but we know it does. When you view the socialisation going on around you and you can also see the resulting effect of that socialisation, then is it not just a logical conclusion?

lol SGB. It seems vital here that as much agency is removed from prostitutes as possible. They must be seen as victims as first principle, deluded with illusions of real authority and broken inside, otherwise with any real agency ascribed to them they would be despised for collusion with patriarchy.

JM asks That men and women are 'wired' differently....? Or is it more likely that we're socialised differently? And if so, how, and why? I'm sure it's the latter..TSB says I would guess it's mostly socialisation.
Now there is no doubt that human male and females are socialized differently-but sex differences in behaviour are seen in all animals from fruit flies to mice-are they socialized differently no-they are wired by their biology differently.
That is not to say that biology is all determining certainly not-or to deny a role of socialisation-but to claim all gender differences are the result of socialization and that biology has no role is a bit extreme IMHO

I don't think women are socialised to see men as human beings. I think we are rather more socialized to see them as a combination of bumbling idiot and dangerous monster. They can't cope with housework. They don't 'see mess'. They're all rapists, so we need to choose the least awful rapist and please and placate him into keeping all the other rapists away. We need to make them happy sexually or they will stop supporting us economically, but we don't like sex ourselves. Etc.

The idea of imposing my desire for sex on a man who didn't feel desire for me is utterly toe-curlingly awful. It really amazes me that men who use prostitutes don't feel that, at all.

I think the majority of punters manage to convince themselves that the woman is enjoying the experience. Partly because the women pretend they are, as it's in their interests to do so; partly because men's sense of entitlement is such that their thought process is something like, "So I've paid her for sex, what does it matter? I'm a GREAT fuck, she's going to love it"; partly because the alternative is just too horrible to contemplate.

The CSA taking a tiny fraction of your wage and only if the mother really fights for it is not a deterrent
We need to actually punish men who use prostituted women even if the women aren't testifying against them. It needs to be treated as rape by the law. Although as rape has such a low conviction rate that needs to change first. There needs to be real, hard consequences for the punters.
I don't like the punishments the Swedish model puts on the women at all. They need help not their children taken away!

Although I do have that concern for DS. I've always made him aware that any babies he fathers will be his financial and practical responsibility. You would think with maintenance and the CSA men would feel the pinch.

But then I guess that is why prostitution is so attractive to so many men. No strings, no responsibility. Hasn't that always been the case?

And it's easy to increase the consequences for women, because they're the ones left gestating, birthing, and ultimately holding the baby.

Men don't have that concern.

Take the current one hailed as being oh so objective: that men evolved to be polygamous whilst women were just out to find a strong carer for their kids. Yawn....

JM, I would guess it's mostly socialisation. Throughout history society has developed a whole host of rationales that increase the social consequences for women who have extra/pre marital sex whilst decreasing those for men.

Personally I think it started around the time that paternity became important, or when women and their offspring began to be seen as labour.

Interesting question. Leaving aside historical lack of economic power, stigma etc., I would hazard a guess that it's because women see men as human beings and the thought of having sex with a human being who doesn't really want to be there with you, is pretty horrible for most women.

So what are you saying? That men and women are 'wired' differently....?

Or is it more likely that we're socialised differently? And if so, how, and why?

I'm sure it's the latter, and I'm equally sure it's tied up in the way men and women come at the act of sex from such different vantage points, as already outlined.

YY AskBasil. Plus we always have the cougar trope there to make women who do have the power to buy sex feel slightly ashamed and desperate.

For every Samantha there's a dozen Barneys.

"Not many people consent to work for free that I know of, why is sex a special case? "

DWH, the difference between sex and other unpleasant jobs is that if one day the benefits office insists that I get a job cleaning loos I may well be pissed off, but if they insist I get my kit off for a complete stranger and let him have his slobbery sleazy wicked way with me.... I will likely be suicidal.

If prostitution were a job like any other men would do it.

Oh FGS. Decriminalisation doesn't work, criminalisation doesn't work, because by its very definition it's about pushing the boundaries of what women are prepared to put up with.

Look at porn, which has become boringly mainstream, so what happens? It gets nastier, dirtier, more violent and with more risk to women.

The only way these things will stop is when there stops being a demand for them and that will only happen when the men WALT start seeing women in a different light. And when the social stigma and physical ramifications of sex for women are removed, thus putting them on an equal playing field with men (as JM has finely pointed out)

I'm not holding my breath for any of those things to happen, although I would like them to.

This is worth a read.

No I don't think decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution would improve the welfare of women in prostitution.

Agree Flora, it's certainly not working in Germany or the Netherlands.

The idea was noble(ish) but the experiment needs to end now.

Same old, same old.

DWH making it down to women to stop men raping them for money. The punter doing the same old copy/paste he always does. Next he's going to tell us that he's not one of those punters, he's a nice one, he talks to them, let's them fuss his dog so they stop crying for long enough to let him rape them for money. But they all love it, and are doing it to fund university courses in utter fabulousness.

Of course punters don't want the Nordic Model to be repeated everywhere, not because they give a toss about the women, because they really don't, but because it will restrict their access to those women and because it reframes the problem. It takes the problem off the women's shoulders and places it firmly where it belongs, on the punter's. Attitudes toward men who use prostitutes are changing in Sweden. It is no longer seen as acceptable to pay to have sex on women who don't want them to do it.

You think it would not improve their welfare? Is a chance to strike at johns more important to you? Try the Swedish model then. I am not familiar enough with it to know the extent to which it can protect women, given its an odd notion to make selling something legal but the purchase of it illegal, but if it better protects women its a great idea, at least until you get around to inventing that magic wand.

Try the Swedish model? Yes please. No I don't think decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution would improve the welfare of women in prostitution.