Just got on a train...

Right, scallops.

But hey - the football's on now. So he's leaving his academic "discussion" of violence against women (and it being casually and loudly discussed on the train) for a while.

"I've already said that it's nigh on impossible to tell whether you're raping someone or not."

No, really it isn't.

When a man tells you what he is, believe him

"It then assumes that I'm a straight man paying for sex with a woman compared to receiving money for sodomy and then seeks to make a point from the attitudinal differences to those two scenarios. "

Well, yes.

What's the difference. There isn't one.

You're being penetrated by someone you don't want to be penetrated by, for cash. Your personal sexual preference is irrelevant, I don't understand why it is always brought up. The women do not fancy the men they are having sex with. They may not be straight. They certainly perform sex acts that they would rather not - market pressure has meant that women are offering "services" that they do not want to offer but they need to compete for business (BBC piece recently).

So. What is the difference? Men who post in defence of this industry are always very quick to say that for them to be fucked by a man for money is totally different to a woman being fucked by a man for money. Well it isn't, and the fact that they are desperate to say it is reveals just how horrifying they find the thought when it's them that would have to do it. So they say no no it's the the same. It is exactly the same. Although - a woman would have less chance against a man in it came to violence, so actually even in that situation the man (depending on relative builds etc) might have a nominal advantage.

No, read my question again. I asked you if you would have sex (not specifying the type), for the price you would consider it reasonable to pay. I didn't say "for the price that you pay".

I don't get the point you are trying to make with your water analogy. We are talking about having sex for money. Sex that women (and some men) would otherwise choose not to have. The only way I can make sense of your analogy is if you mean that some women enjoy having sex that they would otherwise choose not to have? The idea of the happy hooker? Can you explain how you see "I would rather not be doing this" squaring with "I am enjoying doing this"?

I am guessing that my later comment about having no idea what it is like to have sex that you don't enjoy holds very true. Toleration does not equate to not being in the situation of wanting it to stop as soon as possible.

glovender doesn't give a shit about whether men pay for sex or not, or whether men talk about paying for sex on public transport

he's admitted, it's putting down feminists and feeling like he's "cutting through the froth" with his concise, rational, reasoned arguments is pure entertainment

whether women are being subjected to violence in the real world is not his concern

Oh yes, I'd forgotten who you are.

But Thistledew, it's such a poor question. It ignores everything I've already said by assuming that I would pay for sex. It then assumes that I'm a straight man paying for sex with a woman compared to receiving money for sodomy and then seeks to make a point from the attitudinal differences to those two scenarios.

What's your next point? Say I accept the point that degradation is inherrent in having sex that you doesn't enjoy - that's got eff-all to do with what I said in the preceding quote. It's like saying water's always wet when I've said that it doesn't always rain. Just... Oh, I give up. Besides, the football's on now.

Donkey - I would think it likely that the majority of men, and the majority of punters, have never had sex that they truly did not enjoy. The sort of sex that you just hope will end soon but for XYZ reason you can't call a halt to.

If they truly have, and know what it feels like, but still get a kick out of putting another person through that experience - well, that speaks volumes.

Very clever. Veiled threats of violence.

Cue - "you are over reacting, I didn't mean it that way"

But, in that vein, and in light of Glovender's points, I'm always slightly boggled by punters who compare prostitution to poorly remunerated domestic work like cleaning (aside from the fact that it shows they obviously consider both sex and cleaning to be domestic shit work that women perform for the benefit of men).

Because they are admitting that the women they are paying for sex hate, or at the very least barely tolerate, having sex with them. Yet they enjoy these sexual experiences very much. With a partner for whom the encounter is, by their own admission, a nasty and/or boring experience to be endured.

I would never want to have sex with someone who was gritting their teeth throughout, much like I have to grit my teeth and force myself to scrub the toilet or mop the kitchen floor. Yet punters are fine with this and even think it constitutes an argument in favour of prostitution.

"This is my problem with the feminist response that suggests that the exploitation side of the trade is a crucial part of men's participation, as if men are actually after the degradation and coercion to feed their maniac egos"

Degradation is inherent in having sex that you don't enjoy.

You haven't answered my question about whether you would have sex for the same sum that you consider to be a reasonable payment for sex, and if not, why not? What does that say about your ideas of the 'value' of people who are paid for sexual exploitation?

I'll cheerfully put CC down. The sort of school bully that accuses everyone else of their own faults. Kind of funny really. Or sad.

I've already said that it's nigh on impossible to tell whether you're raping someone or not. The likelihood of my participation in the supply part of the market is therefore obvious - well unless of course you think I'm a potential rapist.... Oh! Of course! Duh! Obviously you think I' a potential rapist; you're feminists.

Buffy:

1. I'm not defending the industry. I'm talking about the feminist response to the question of prostitution.

2. Obviously not. Do you really think I'm likely to say yes? So why ask?

3. In an ideal world we could eliminate demand; not going to happen, but here's to trying - I'm in. However, let's assume that we are a long way from making significant gains in this regard. The harder it is to meet that demand, the more unscrupulous the suppliers. Do you disagree?

4. The dynamic above. Same as drugs in that regard. This is my problem with the feminist response that suggests that the exploitation side of the trade is a crucial part of men's participation, as if men are actually after the degradation and coercion to feed their maniac egos. I don't doubt that that's true of a very small minority, but to apply it as a general rule is, to me at least, misguided.

I think the value male punters place on women generally as sexually autonomous beings is irrelevant to the argument, but rather a means of rearranging the argument to suit a feminist perspective. They may be using that autonomy to become a prostitute. Or do you mean in a relative way - in which case, do you think of your binmen as lesser human beings than your lawyer? Hopefully not. Furthermore, the exchange of money for sex doesn't require female involvement in many cases, so where does that leave your question? Perhaps you think all gay men all suffer from self-loathing.

Why would an exchange not be legitimate if both parties are satisfied with the consideration? Only if wider society had deemed it illegal - well, that's law, not morality.

Good question Petula; no, there is no point attempting to discuss anything with you and hope that your opinions may be influenced in any diretion other than down further partisan lines. That would be a fool's errand. So the answer is obvious and it's the same reason you're here: it's an alternative to Coronation Street.

"as compared to the capitalist argument that the presence of a mutually agreed upon exchange makes the exchange relationship legitimate"

Very well put, Buffy.

'Debating' with people like Glove always reminds me of how incensed I was when I had to read Francis Fukyuama's essay "The End of History" as a politics undergraduate. Perhaps in some ways he is right, and that capitalist socio-economics is now so ingrained that many people (such as Glove) just see any debate or theory that contradicts such a model as being "wrong", without stopping to question whether such a capitalistic morality is the best, or indeed the only one. We have these sorts 'debates' time and time again on this board, but they are only half debates, because the arguments in favour of maintaining the status quo only ever start from the point that the status quo is the best we can do, and is therefore 'right'.

The rest of you lovely people who are able and willing to go back and question whether the status quo should be the starting point still allow me to hold out hope that Fukuyama was wrong.

Sorry. That was in reference to our punter friend who has scarpered. This thread was only one page long when I last checked it

At least he admits that having sex with him is as much fun as cleaning a toilet.

i should correct myself

"the aim is to put down posters in this section, not to actually debate the points"

the aim is to put down posters in this section, not to actually contribute to the discussion

And are you aware that your point to, I assume, me, made no sense?

So, what do you think about men holding forth in a derogatory way about prostituted women and comparing their wives poorly to those women?

Ok with you?

I once nursed a woman who was at death's door (literally. She died a few weeks later from liver disease) who was taken off the ward by her pimp so she could go and earn him a few quid. She could barely stand up (but then, she didn't really need to). She'd been abused as a child, been impregnated 4 times by punters (the children had been taken away) and was a drug addict and alcoholic. Tell me again how she had options? Tell me about how she gave her consent?

glovender doesn't really want to debate topic in question (and absolutely no response on the OP's original topic anyway)

a quick search of glovender's posts suggests that their position is that they see more clearly than everyone here, and they come here to cut through the frothing, the confirmation bias, the hypocrisy, the weak arguments

what a hero

the aim is to put down posters in this section, not to actually debate the points

"you lot"

If you don't want to be accused of mansplaining, then don't mansplain.

Come on Glove - don't be coy. How much would you pay to have sex with someone who didn't actually want to have sex with you, and would you be willing to have sex with someone you didn't want to have sex with for the same amount?

If not, why not?