Prostitutes - Are Women in Denial About Who Uses Them?

Men buy sex because they want to and there are women selling it. I don't think it needs to be over thought, they get horny and need a release. I very much doubt that they aren't getting sex at home, i just think they want more than what's on offer.

Not you garlic just a general sort of thing on this thread.

Even if lots of women are ignoring / othering / avoiding etc that's still not the root of any of the problems with this stuff is it IYSWIM.

Not saying it's not worth talking about, this is an interesting thread. Just, noticed that yet again women's behaviour is becoming the focus.

Some of it may be magical thinking - same as women victim blaming with rape - oh well she had a short skirt / was walking in the wrong area after dark / I won't do that it won't happen to me. It happens to that sort of woman who does those things. This idea comes from the same place surely. Maybe.

It wouldn't be difficult would it - actually, I couldn't do it! In theory, there wasn't any reason why I shouldn't join my high-end hooker friends part-time. I was 'approved'. But I was talking to these perfectly normal blokes, trying to get around to the business, and I simply couldn't do it. I kept thinking they were just like someone's uncle, and looking at their wedding rings, imagining their families, and I loathed them for what they were doing.

The even more bizarre thing is that I have slept with married men a couple of times. I strongly disliked what they were doing but, because they were my friends and it was my controlled choice, it didn't stop me wanting to have sex with them.

I wouldn't do either scenario again, though - that was the old, patriarchally indoctrinated me.

No, it totally isn't flattering towards men!

The thing I don't get is why decent men don't have a go at their whoring mates. Perhaps they do, and I just haven't heard of it?

that's, what, they are thinking something wrong?

I was intending to comment on the strength of patriarchal privilege in our own culture, not blame women for being influenced by it. I might not be writing very clearly, I'm poorly today.

"The popular mythology says men only use prostitutes when their 'needs' aren't being met. Their partners should meet them. In return, women get the promise of fidelity. When she fails to service adequately, he attends a sub-human service instead."

But then apparently further, if he can't pay for it then he's liable to rape someone.

Make of that what you will. Not hugely flattering towards men is it. If that's the general view out there IRL.

Thing is I can't speak for other women, I really don't know what they think or say. I don't have conversations about this stuff IRL and on MN I tend to hang around on FWR and maybe a bit of chat.

I really don't have a feel for whether lots of women think that men's dark needs (?!) are being slaked on some kind of sub-human underclass. It's not something that comes up really. Are we not also in danger of focussing on the women again? If a bunch of women think "I'm glad there are prostitutes because when my husband doesn't see a prostitute he comes home and forces me" or whatever then that's, what, they are thinking something wrong? If women are scared of what men will be like then that's not good is it? I don't really understand the thrust of the point past "Do we think that lots of women lack empathy / are pleased to divert horrible men onto these other women / think of prostitutes as sub-human?". It's not the women who are the problem here though is it? On the whole?

And FYI when I think about prostitution I think about it as a worldwide concern and am aware that it is through sheer luck that I am not in a bad situation somewhere and forced (whether literally or through circumstance). So there's no thinking prostitutes aren't real women here, it's the knowledge that as a woman (and previously as a girl) it's always somewhere that you could end up. I have been offered money for sex by strangers when I was young. I said no. If I had wanted some money / had some kind of problems that made me more risktaking or unstable / had some kind of addiction issues or an abusive partner or friends who did it then it might have been yes. It wouldn't be difficult would it, it's just a couple of steps away.

Maybe the views in chat are different but on here I'm not sure that women are in denial / othering etc.

From OP's OP:

[women don't want to] confront the fact that men they know enjoy dehumanising women who need money ... Why is this? Is it just the question of tangible cheating or are women not as ok with 'sex work' for women as they say they are?

I've snipped the connecting sentences, because I don't think anyone here does see sex work as an empowering career choice.

Also, I don't think the majority of women are 'okay' with sex work for women. I agree that a high proportion of women are - wilfully or not - ignorant about how many men use prostitutes, and that it's almost certain they are close to men who do, some of them probably habitually.

Most women, I think, would see their partner's use of a prostitute primarily as cheating. If the betrayed woman's a mumsnetter, she will also factor in the dehumanising/objectifying/misogynistic aspect of it, but that would normally happen after the initial outrage at his cheating.

If she isn't a mumsnetter, I'd say the odds are pretty high that she and her friends will suppose he must have 'needs' she should have met, but failed, and simultaneously that the prostitute is some kind of worthless sub-human (skank).

So the answers to your questions are NEVER about prostitution per se, nor even about men's reasons for hiring women's bodies. They're about women's continued status in our society as servicers of men's 'needs'.

The popular mythology says men only use prostitutes when their 'needs' aren't being met. Their partners should meet them. In return, women get the promise of fidelity. When she fails to service adequately, he attends a sub-human service instead. This is jolly decent of him, for he might have had an affair with a human woman instead.

Well, Ask, I can see why people were so 'up in arms' about that observation, tbh. I think your comment is both specific to the teacher (as sad as it was) and 'choice' about what is being offered by the OP which I'm sure'ish was about 'nice comfortable Nigels and their wives', not trafficking issues.

iirc, Sutcliffe was killing women around 1981? We know that Yorks police was/is fundamentally wrecked (see Hillsborough re S Yorks not so many years later) so raising Sutcliffe as 'evidence' currently is a bit poor, imho.

YY AskBasil. I was dismayed when someone who I consider a feminist expressed the view that many marriages have been saved because of prostitution

Basil, having thought about the reaction to this thread, I think the problem is not what Op is saying but how

She seems to forget where she is (in FWR) and is somewhat preaching to the converted (preaching being the operative word) and there is a certain attitude coming across that she is the first to point out the myriad issues around the sex industry. All "other women's" assessments of the situation being somewhat inferior to her own, of course.

I thought we afforded each other a certain modicum of respect/assumed a level of education in here and all her posts just looked goady to me for no reason at all I could see.

as if providing the required number of women for men to have sex in, was now part of the event management of this celebration of human achievement

This is the part that continues to shock me. I remember some angst over the large community of prostitutes that sprang up to service the London Olympic site construction workers. It seemed to be mainly about whether to get rid of them or prioritise some decent housing for them. Don't know what happened in the end, but they weren't shipped out. Probably weren't housed, either.

See, if we had criminalised using prostitutes, something could have been done about that. I appreciate the arguments are complex, but here's one example where it would have worked.

"Do some women, and I'm not just talking about third-wave feminists here, feel an unspoken relief at the idea of there being an underclass of 'sex-workers' soaking up men's darkness and frustrations so the legitimate, nice women only have to deal with socially acceptable side these men choose to show to the world. They don't really like that someone is doing it but mostly they're glad it's not them.

Your posts are very antagonistic, even if you don't mean them to be.."

I'm not sure why people are so up in arms about this observation. I have certainly come across women (not feminists) who do have an incredibly low opinion of men and are at the same time very male-identified - the sort of women who argue that "men have needs" and take it for granted that there is a sub-class of women who are there to serve those needs. (And call those of us who don't believe that about men, man-haters - oh the irony.)

I remember feelings shocked by the response of one of my children's teachers of all things, when we were discussing a news story that prostituted women were being shipped into South Africa for the Olympics, as if providing the required number of women for men to have sex in, was now part of the event management of this celebration of human achievement . This particular guardian of the education of the next generation of human beings, observed that she supposed it was a good thing as it would stop men raping women. And yes, she actually said that. As if the women who were being shipped in for men's use, are not women. I can just remember the feeling of dismay that this woman was teaching my kids tbh. But what she was expressing, isn't that unusual - it wasn't the first time I've heard the opinion voiced that we need prostitution because otherwise men would rape "normal" women. When Peter Sutcliffe started murdering women in Leeds, the Yorkshire Police didn't care for years, until he started murdering women who were not known prostitutes. That's not that long ago.

cheers Garlic. there did appear to be a disconnect, from what I understood about you, at least.

Massive breakdown forced reappraisal. I've spent the last 10+ years learning about decent people & balanced relationships. Grotesque oversimplification, but it'll do! It wasn't a judgement in my eyes, merely a fact - I would judge people who abused their privilege, but my baseline for 'abused' was lower than it should be.

Cheers for asking :)

Garlic - I've read what you've posted over the years, and I'm pretty surprised that you thought until recently 'it's what they do', as if it was a broad sweep judgement on the whole sex. The obv question is 'so what changed your interpretation of how we behave re using prostitutes'?

he is a man and it's what they do

I'm unfamiliar with CKD's posting history, but that is genuinely what I believed until relatively recently. I wouldn't say I was prurient (well, no more than anyone else) or bitter, though. I just thought it was a universal fact, like water flows downhill.

I'm not sure how helpful it is to put words into other posters mouths (so to speak) SGB.

Some interesting posts. Though the OP, going by other threads, seems to have a particularly prurient and bitter mindset. S/he probably does think we should all interrogate every man we know about whether or not he has paid for sex, refuse to believe him if he says no, never, doesn't appeal to him and then announce to the whole neighbourhood that he has, because he is a man and it's what they do.

The concept of marriage is legalised prostitution related to the situation (which still exists in some countries) where once a woman married she signed over all rights to her own property including her body. Her husband could have sex with her whenever he pleased, regardless of her wishes, and in return she would have financial security and the protection of an owner. That concept actually cuts to the heart of what we're talking about in relation of consent - the idea that the monetary exchange circumvents the woman's right to control her own body. Nowadays it is no longer legal for a man to rape his wife.

The overall, ethical issue of prostitution is a tricky one because many women - and men - do trade sex, or sexual relationships, for financial advantage. "Marriage is legalised prostitution" can be true when a wife doesn't make her own money. It can be true, as well, that a woman who intends to have full sex with a new partner but holds off until he's bought her X number of dinners, theatre tickets or whatever, has prostituted herself. It's just that her going rate is 12 hours of company, 6 hours of conversation and £150 worth of food/entertainment.

It is thorny, and it does all come down to economic/social inequality.

Migsy: you say that the men are "nice". They may smile, shower, say please and thank you but they are not nice. Nice men do not use prostitutes.

I"m really sorry to hear that you are short of money and concerned that you won't manage if you do a course.

Why does your partner not become a prostitute as well rather than leaving the earning all to you? There is market in male prostitutes, either to escort women, or he could opt for gay males. Not a problem.

As he so clearly approves of his partner being a prostitute he cannot in all conscience object to becoming one himself.

in some cases they carry on regardless - well, that is rape. Legally & everything. It's also analogous to the examples Cailin and Curwen discussed, because the client's putting your health and livelihood at risk. Would you report a client like this to the police, or is that a daft question? How about your partner, would he intervene?

If I didn't provide all the services I said I offered the guy wouldn't be happy as he's paid me upfront. I know some would stop and out of respect wouldn't push it but from past experience some would keep on asking and in some cases they carry on regardless, forced bareback is one example.

Given what you said here, migsy, how can you argue that your consent is valid? Because the man has bought your consent he considers himself to own it, and therefore to have full access to your body regardless of your wishes. If you cannot withdraw your consent, then in fact your consent is meaningless. The exchange of money means that instead of consenting you are essentially giving up your right to consent, which in turn gives the men you mentioned who "carry on regardless" free rein to rape you, in their minds at least.