The greens and prostitutes

If sex is just a social interaction like any other, no big deal, no emotional importance, no intimacy, wham bam thank you ma'am... then surely rape is no big deal either?

Well... no. Sex can be a emotionless social interaction or it can be a deep, spiritual bonding between people who are in love. Rape is always an act of violence and an attack on one's autonomy and bodily integrity.

Similarly. the sexual exchange that Kim describes in which one partner "gets to focus entirely on what they want" in exchange for money - surely the logical extension of that way of thinking is rape? If there's no problem with one person focusing entirely on their pleasure and not caring about the pleasure of their partner, what's the stop a person who feels that way from ignoring their partner's pleasure entirely?

You can focus entirely on your own pleasure without it being to the detriment of another person's happiness. If your idea of pleasure is to violently exert dominance over another person against your will, then that certainly is rape. But to sit back and enjoy sex without any emotional strings or expectations other than paying cash is really no different than getting a pedicure, assuming the person providing the service feels adequately compensated.

If sex is just a social interaction like any other, no big deal, no emotional importance, no intimacy, wham bam thank you ma'am... then surely rape is no big deal either?

e.g. having a conversation with someone is a social interaction that can have varying levels of emotional significance and can be commodified since it is expected in various jobs. It's not very nice to have conversations with people when you really don't want to - small talk is despicable, as is talking to people you really don't like. But no one comes away from an unwanted conversation with PTSD, as routinely happens with women who have had unwanted sex. Does this not tell us that sex is different from other social interactions? And does claiming otherwise not belittle the suffering of people who have been raped?

Similarly. the sexual exchange that Kim describes in which one partner "gets to focus entirely on what they want" in exchange for money - surely the logical extension of that way of thinking is rape? If there's no problem with one person focusing entirely on their pleasure and not caring about the pleasure of their partner, what's the stop a person who feels that way from ignoring their partner's pleasure entirely?

It all seems to be part of the same mindset - sex is just an exchange, sexual pleasure is a bonus but hardly a requirement, sex work is just like any other type of work, NO BIG DEAL.

This was the mindset of the man who raped one of my friends while she was unconscious - he just couldn't understand why she was upset about it and in fact said "but it was just sex!"

Deconstructing sex itself is tremendously challenging, and of course people are going to default to what makes sense for them in the privacy of their own head/bedroom.

There is a bizarre cycle of objectification going on, and I appreciate this may sound counterintuitive next to the concept of patriarchy but we are all objectified to a greater or lesser extent (that is both men and women are). It is potentially true to say in the transaction of sex for cash the prostitute is physically objectified by the punter, but so too the punter is objectified by the prostitute as being little more than a sex operated walking atm machine.

Thus stands a microcosm of traditional male/female interactions (if you like as overseen by the patriarchy). On reflection it seems as if the work feminism is doing needs to be matched by similar work on the masculine side of the coin. Obviously it can be taken as read that the status quo is invested in keeping women materially impoverished, as we as a society equate money as power, and also neatly illustrates why we have feminism as when you look at it in those terms the status quo is blatantly unfair.

However I at least would argue that men who have gone so far down that road are indisputably damaged. Note I am not about absolving personal responsibility here I am merely trying to trace back where this goes batshit screwy. They go on to either wilfully harm women who work as prostitutes or simply not really care enough wether they do or not.

I cannot accept this as a natural state as by default humanity does not generally like to cause suffering and misery, soldiers have to be trained to other enemy combatants, and the holocaust gas chambers had to be implemented in part thanks to the psychological toll shooting scores of unarmed people had on the people tasked with doing it.

I don't think sex is an inherent negative or moral sin either, and so I struggle to see sex for money as inherently troubling either, but outside the laboratory of my mind it quite clearly is a negative for too many people, and thus something must be done about it.

I probably shouldn't post this as I have no idea where I am going with this I need to think on it some more, either that or I may just have flawed thinking somewhere.

No, I don't think that all men want to use prostitutes. But I would say that wanting to or not makes no real difference in their overall makeup as a person. I would say that it's about as significant to how kind or decent they are as having an interest in military history. Speaking of the men I see, I believe they are no more or less likely to hit someone, embezzle funds, donate to charity, love animals, or cheat on their taxes.

Kim, while I understand your view that the men you see are indistinguishable from other men, that doesn't mean that there aren't differences between them. I would assert that the very fact they are comfortable paying for sex makes them different from other men. Unless you're suggesting that all men use prostitutes / want to use prostitutes?

KimCar Tue 10-Mar-15 12:34:47 Lion I know plenty of prostitutes who have arrived at the same conclusion about men and relationships. Since we truly believe that these men are indistinguishable from any other man, quite a few have come to feel that no man can be trusted to remain monogamous for life

I have heard the same for some lapdancers that after seeing that side of men has jaded it all.

No the underlying problems are the attitudes of those with the power.

I don't necessarily thing the underlying problem is one of economic or social issues in their home countries, although that is clearly a significant problem. The underlying problems are that women are treated as commodities (and that happens no matter with economic wealth of the country) and the barriers to entry within some countries. The Haves and the Have Nots. The Haves want it to remain that way. You have to be worthy enough to join them.

Vulnerable human being are often treated as commodities, in and out of the sex industry. The underlying problems are socioeconomic in all cases, whether we are talking about prawns or prostitutes.

This is simply an attack. You've no reason to think this way, especially given that people opposed to prostitution come from a wide variety of backgrounds, some from a religious background and some lesbians or radical feminists. You simply can't make a sweeping statement like that and be taken seriously.

No, it is not an attack. It is simply what I believe and I expressed it in a non-hostile way. Nor do I think that there is only one POV for all abolitionists. A religious objection would be different from a radical feminist objection. But, what I am hearing in this thread are repeated statements along the lines of "sex shouldn't be this or that."

I think we can all agree that sex shouldn't be one person abusing another. However, I do not think that paying someone to perform sex act is abusive in and of itself. There are definitely frequent intersections between sex, money, and abuse and so prostitution can involve abuse.

"It is the case that women who choose to come to a richer country from a much poorer one are economic migrants. They are not slaves (although their vulnerability may put them in positions of being abused, and this is true of all economic migrants in unskilled labour.) That is simply the truth. How happy they are to do so is another matter and I would say that the underlying problem is one of economic or social issues in their home countries." Choice? What is choice in that context. In the example one woman was a doctor. That is not unskilled.

I don't necessarily thing the underlying problem is one of economic or social issues in their home countries, although that is clearly a significant problem. The underlying problems are that women are treated as commodities (and that happens no matter with economic wealth of the country) and the barriers to entry within some countries. The Haves and the Have Nots. The Haves want it to remain that way. You have to be worthy enough to join them.

women who choose to come to a richer country from a much poorer one are economic migrants. They are not slaves

No-one said they were slaves. Trafficking is not about slavery. It's too easy to drop people into an "economic migrant" bucket and turn away from the exploitation of victims of abuse, war zones or extreme poverty for the sake of men's orgasms.

I want to make the point that opponents of prostitution are usually wedded to a particular idea of what sexual relations ought to be for everyone.

This is simply an attack. You've no reason to think this way, especially given that people opposed to prostitution come from a wide variety of backgrounds, some from a religious background and some lesbians or radical feminists. You simply can't make a sweeping statement like that and be taken seriously.

Lion I know plenty of prostitutes who have arrived at the same conclusion about men and relationships. Since we truly believe that these men are indistinguishable from any other man, quite a few have come to feel that no man can be trusted to remain monogamous for life. For some, this is expressed in terms of jaded disillusionment of the "Now I know that all men are lying cheaters" variety while others are more "Now I see that monogamy is not really the norm for men."

I don't hold either of those views, but I definitely don't think I can know for sure whether or not a given man would purchase sex.

I think a particular idea of human sexual interaction that includes agency & choice that rests on a foundation that does not tolerate people having their psyches fractured is a good benchmark. Blue sky utopian thinking I know!

I don't know what lines get trotted out, as I don't spend much time engaged in these sorts of debates. It is not a line on my part, it is what I think.

I have seen comments in this discussion to the effect of what sex ought to be. That there must be lust or attraction on the part of both parties, that it would make more sense to just have a wank, etc. Although not expressed in this discussion, there are of course religious moral arguments against prostitution because of religious views of what sex out to be and it what context it should take place.

I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to have superficial sex with a stranger in which one party gets paid money and in exchange the other gets to focus entirely on what they want. Some want to lie back and get oral sex and some want to make the prostitute orgasm, but either way they are paying for what they want. So long as the other prostitute is happy with the arrangement, then I don't think there is any problem with that at all.

The only problem, as I see it, is how does anyone know for sure that the prostitute is truly happy? That is an issue I think deserves attention and I don't think either side do anyone any favours when they throw around flimsy statistics or try to brush them aside. I don't think that there are no abused and unhappy hookers but I also don't think that they are the norm.

Yes Kim - I know what you mean. I have opted out of having a relationship as I haven't yet found a man who makes me happy. I clearly must have high expectations but I also just can't be bothered with the hassle any more. I don't think anyone would dispute that these men seem nice on the surface, but as I said any man who can pay a woman to service them like a car isn't my idea of someone I'd want in my house. I'm not naive and am sure some of the men I know have used prostitutes. I have chosen not to be caught up in the worry of that and gone solo with dd. I have been cheated on in the past and am not convinced I could go through another emotional turmoil, especially if it just boiled down to him saying "well, I could so I did." You can try to take the emotions out of what you do, and I understand why you need to, but for the rest of us we have to draw a line and hope that the men we love, or could love, may actually be who they are appearing to be. People have to trust, no matter how misguided that may seem to a prostitute.

I want to make the point that opponents of prostitution are usually wedded to a particular idea of what sexual relations ought to be for everyone

I am an abolitionist. Please, tell me what I believe about sexual relations. I am agog.

Sorry, that line makes me really very cross and always gets trotted out eventually. As does the troll's one about male conservatism.

The ones he posted on trafficking excluded women who were "in love" with their pimps and women who "chose" to be transported to the UK for prostitution because their Hs had been killed in war zones and life was untenable for a single woman in their home country. One was a doctor. These were put into the category of economic migrants, not trafficked women.

It is the case that women who choose to come to a richer country from a much poorer one are economic migrants. They are not slaves (although their vulnerability may put them in positions of being abused, and this is true of all economic migrants in unskilled labour.) That is simply the truth. How happy they are to do so is another matter and I would say that the underlying problem is one of economic or social issues in their home countries.

As for what the men want, I feel that they are not wrong to want a simple encounter with a woman who centres her attention on his pleasure. I have many clients who want to lie back with their hands behind their head and get a blow job and I have absolutely no problem with that. How is that different than wanting a massage? It is not "abusive" to want a simple sexual interaction. It is abusive when one party does not have the power and autonomy control their terms.

If you look at the Relationships board, you will read numberless tales of misery born out of romantic love and the institution of marriage. I think one could argue that all sexual relationships would be better if they were temporary and based on the exchange of money. I don't actually feel that way, but I want to make the point that opponents of prostitution are usually wedded to a particular idea of what sexual relations ought to be for everyone.

"In each case, what they are buying is the ability not to care if the woman is enjoying herself.". Yes yes yes.

"there may not be anything like the scale of trafficking you think there is"

Well from the article Annie Lennox did in the guardian over the weekend: "Between 700,000 and 4 million girls and women are sold into prostitution each year."

Even taking the lower figure I'd say that was pretty substantial. That is worldwide btw before anyone dies of shock. But it is an annual figure.