Prostitutes - Are Women in Denial About Who Uses Them?

Much for me to ponder there, cailin - thanks.

No he doesn't work, and I've raised the issue of me training to do something else but he's worried about how we'll manage. The are other issues going on that I won't talk about on here but they do affect me too.

I will have to leave though because all prostitutes have a shelf life and I do worry about what will happen then. I'm under 25 now so I'm more desirable, i look younger which is obviously popular to the clients, but what will happen as I age? 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. Luckily they are in the minority.

Really good examples. There are a few ways to look at those sorts of issues. You could take the view that coal mining and being in the army are necessary pursuits that need to be done by someone in order to provide energy and security. Therefore, from a utilitarian point of view, the danger those workers are putting themselves in has a wider benefit for their community and therefore is justified. In comparison, being a prostitute only benefits individual men who could obtain sex elsewhere, therefore the danger the women put themselves in is not justified. This is too simplistic a view IMO and not one I hold.
You could also say that given that armies and coal mines are run by wealthy governments and companies whose main beneficiaries would never dream of entering a mine, ever, then the balance of power between the army higher-ups/soldiers and mine owner/miners is so skewed that in fact there is a form of coercion involved. Poor people who have no other option are being paid a pittance to put their lives at risk so that others can benefit from their labour. The army example is more complicated one here as there is an argument for the necessity of armed forces but IMO that necessity is often manufactured and the "need" for armed forces benefits many people who would never themselves go into battle. Anyway, that's a much larger argument. I would agree to an extent with this view, in the sense that if you value human life and expect human life to be put at risk for the good of others then the payment given to those humans should reflect the value and the risk, which in the case of miners, and often in the case of soldiers, it rarely does.
Many slaves, post-abolition, chose to stay with their owners because that was the only life they knew. That fact does not indicate that slavery is not really a bad thing, given that some actively choose it, it just indicates that the balance of power between slaves and their owners was so skewed that the slaves couldn't find a way out of the life that had been foisted upon them. The only way they saw to survive was to continue to be abused and disregarded because "free" though they were, the legacy of their slavery was an inability to conceive of a truly free life.

It's easy to distinguish between consent and coercion. I allow and take part in sexual acts with men who pay me for my time. Rape is an act where NO consent is given, the person isn't willingly taking part in sex. I don't know how hard it is to understand?

Here's a similar one, cailin. A person grows up in a coal mining community. It is all they know. They understand the job is hazardous, potentially lethal. They take it anyway, because their options are extremely limited. Now, you can ban mining, because someone at some point will be killed. Or you can put laws and safety procedures in place to minimise risks, all the while knowing that there will be, at some point, death and injury. You could also look at army recruits from poor backgrounds.

How do you distinguish between consent and coercion in such cases?

What's important is to look at what exactly you're consenting to. A prostitute is consenting to allow a man she doesn't know well to be alone in a room with her, in private, with no clothes on, allowing him to put his penis inside her and possibly ejaculate (with or without a condom) with the opportunity to hurt her physically, mentally and emotionally. She is also running the risk of becoming pregnant, of contracting an STI or of experiencing stigma shame and ostracisation if others find out what she is doing (given the very low status of prostitution). Essentially she is consenting to be put at great danger in exchange for money.
Take an analogous circumstance - a woman wants to do a show where she throws sharp knives at a man. She is very skilled but now wants to practice with a real live man, so pays a homeless man to be her guinea pig. There's no way he'd ever choose to have knives thrown at him, but he needs the money and so goes along with it, despite his reservations. She slips and the knife lands in the man's arm, wounding him. Would we accept her explanation that he consented?

So there is no such thing as conditional consent, in any walk of life? E.g I will do x, if you will do y?

If a person's consent can be bought, then the concept of consent means nothing IMO and we might as well just throw out all the laws around rape. I do not want to live in a world where I have control over my bodily integrity only until a man finds a subtler way than violence to override it.

I'm not sure most women hate prostitutes but they damn sure see them as "other." What I always reiterate on these kinds of threads is that if you are ok with someone's daughter being a prostitute then that someone should be you. If you are not ok with your daughter being a prostitute then you are not ok with prostitution for anybody.

Curwen there is an argument in radical feminism that given the societal and biological inequalities between men and women, women's consent to sex is never truly valid as the power imbalance is too great. It is a valid philosophical point IMO but not strictly applicable to day to day life. It provides a clear-eyed way of viewing sex and consent that throws out all the grey area bullshit and that is helpful.

I wasn't suggesting you did Capt, I was answering the statement that 'most' women see prostitutes as 'other' and hate them.

I don't think the majority of women on this thread are 'most women' either, thanks. I think I've been pretty clear about that in the past as well. I don't hate prostituted women, I don't see them as other. I was answering Garlic's point.

I agree Garlic, most women do see prostituted women as 'other' it makes them so much easier for them to hate.
I don't see prostitutes as 'other' and I certainly don't hate them and I bet most on this thread don't either.

I agree Garlic, most women do see prostituted women as 'other' it makes them so much easier for them to hate I'm sorry if you thought I meant that AMALT, what I meant was that AM (who use prostitues) ALT. Whether they are the sweaty raincoat type or the high flying family man type, what unites them is that they are entitled woman hating rapists.

Migsy, if you're over 25 you will get a loan to do the access course, which is then written off when you start your degree. If you really do want to pursue it, I can point you in the right direction.

Oh, good lord, Migsy, did that happen?! Stay safe, please!

Those ordinary run of the mill family guys are acting like entitled woman hating rapists. They aren't mutually exclusive.

This doesn't invalidate the point that many - most? - women think the men they know can't be "like that" because they want to believe in their equality. Therefore they characterise prostitute users as 'other' in some observable fashion - this allows them to maintain their conceit.

And, NAMALT. I need to keep repeating this, not from male appeasement but because I need it. I was raised to believe AMALT. Which is probably why so many felt free to share their secrets with me.

No no one can read it because I'm in that private browse thingy now. My situation has changed slightly since I last posted and I the person who I said was my friend earlier has become my partner now so is a lot more supportive and sits in the flat to make sure I'm safe. I can't see me doing this forever but I've looked at access courses and they are expensive and since I'm not rolling in cash I'll have to wait a bit to actually pay for one.

Many women don't realise that they don't stand out as women hating rapists, some on here like to believe, but ordinary run of the mill 'family' guys.

Those ordinary run of the mill family guys are acting like entitled woman hating rapists. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Has your pimp told you how much you owe him yet Migsy? How much longer you'll have to have sex with men who don't think you're human before you can pursue your dream of becoming a nurse? Will he read this thread and threaten you, like he did before?

They were mostly nice, normal, successful men

This was my original point. Many women don't realise that they don't stand out as women hating rapists, some on here like to believe, but ordinary run of the mill 'family' guys. I have seen one client who see me just before he did the school run. I feel guilty but I think they are the cheats, not me.

Is there a scale of exploitation, with prostituted women at one extreme, and a unpaid stay-at-home wife at the other (because both are members of the same unequal society)? Or is it all the same thing? I am trying to get this clear in my own head.

Can't answer that, but you've put it well!

Even on a feminist board this seems to be a touchy subject to raise.

YY. When I went to Thailand for three weeks by myself, I was astonished by the sheer numbers of normal, high-functioning, attractive English men who were in relationships at home - and using prostituted women in Thailand. I still don't quite understand why every other holidaymaker can't see it too; the only possible explanation is selective stupidity.

Both my ex-husbands used prostitutes. The second one's close to addicted - when he's stressed, he goes to a sex worker. He must still be doing it, it's so much a part of who he is. His wife of 12 years, the mother of his children, must be wilfully ignorant. One of my brothers, the one any woman would see as a fantastic catch, is what the papers would call a sex addict. He indignantly swears he'd never 'pay for it' - but he does, in gifts & favours. I don't know whether his current wife's aware; she might be. For many years, I ran bars where it was obvious which men were looking to pay for sex. They were mostly nice, normal, successful men - as were the clients who, in my main career, I occasionally took to lapdancing clubs as part of my entertainment duties. About a quarter of them would pay for their own 'private dances' (I could have put them on expenses, but refused.)

Like the 'establishment paedophile' thing, it's patriarchal male entitlement - and bonding; the bonding's a crucial factor for the normal majority. Similarly, too, it's convenient to look the other way because if we saw, we might have to question everything we've understood about our rights and independence. And, of course, NAMALT. We just don't want to think that any of 'our' men might be LT.

It does matter. But, tbh, I'm not entirely sure in what ways, exactly, it matters. I'm far more clear-cut in my views on CSA.

Well, BOF, that viewpoint is a valid radical feminist viewpoint. Not one I subscribe to though. And seems curiously woman-hating to me < shrug >

Well we were talking mainly about migrant sex workers. Eg: North Africans in Southern Europe, so perhaps I was mainly talking about women without recourse to public funds. I am not so convinced it could never be the least awful option for a uk national. Fwiw I know very little about this although I met a few sex workers in my professional capacity.

I think you're on dodgy ground trying to place prostitution and being temporarily out of paid employment while caring for children on some kind of continuum. It wouldn't fly in AIBU or -Chat without the fur flying anyway.