Why do men use prostitutes?

"they both view sex workers as being weak"

Well that's the end of that, thanks for playing.

Liberalism was developed by rich men for rich men. It works for rich men because removing state interference benefits those who have enough power that they can interpret their lives as a series of choices, preferably unfettered by the need to consider other people.

The state has harmed many vulnerable people. Look at the track record of socialist countries (eastern Europe decades ago, the USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea) when it comes to gay people, for example. Liberal countries get a lot of shit for taking so long to decriminalise gay sex, but actually, they've always been light years ahead of socialist countries on human rights.

I apologise that this was a bit of a tangent, but my point is that liberal countries have the best records on human rights. When you give people a simple list of rights and remove direct interference from the state in their lives, vulnerable people actually win.

Just as liberalism is neither good nor bad in itself, the overlap of views on a particular topic says nothing about an overlap between the beliefs that underlie any particular approach. The feminist approach to prostitution is based on fundamentally different analysis than that of patriarchal conservatives. Even liberals and conservatives overlap on some issues (such as murder or theft). The association of feminists with conservatives has generally been used to discredit feminist analysis by those too lazy or lacking in analysis to try to discredit it on its own foundations. Even you would likely agree with Pope Francis's views on murder.

I understand this, but the key thing to understand is that there IS, in fact, some overlap between the mentality of patriarchal conservatives and anti sex work feminists. It's not just that they both want sex work to be illegal, but there is some similarity between their thought processes, and how they express those thoughts. For example, what's unquestionably common to both patriarchal conservatives and anti sex work feminists is that they both view sex workers as being weak, exploited, and believe it's the role of a strong state to protect weak people such as sex workers. This is miles away from what a liberal would argue on the subject!

Not that all proponents of liberalism or even libertarianism take this to mean that prostitution is justified by a liberal / libertarian approach - even the generally loathsome Ayn Rand was opposed to prostitution

Ben Shapiro , the ultimate poster boy for small government, libertarianism opposes prostitution on the damaging to society point.

Prostitution does not affect only the people providing it. Its mere availability, the mere existence of women's bodies being commodified, affects all women and all society

I wish I had the time to copy and paste this ^ to get to 40 pages.

Ah the old male 'sex workers choose their path' trope. Men have a remarkably naive view of the idea of freedom and free choice, especially in economic terms. Maybe because they have so much of it, and women so little.

Prostitution does not affect only the people providing it. Its mere availability, the mere existence of women's bodies being commodified, affects all women and all society. Much like porn.

When is ARDuke going to prove that prostitution doesn't make men value women less (understatement)?

ARDuke if she's doing it out of a free choice, then it's fundamentally just two consenting adults, and I think that's all that matters. It's her body, if she chooses to use it in that way, that's her choice. What right do you have to interfere with her bodily autonomy?

A commercial activity is never just about two consenting adults. The state and society can and does interfere with commercial activity in many different ways. What if someone chooses to work for less than minimum wage because they don't need the money and are happy to do that? We don't allow that because it undermines the fairness of the workplace for the vast majority of people who can't afford to make this choice. The same thing can be said for any area of regulation that applies to the workplace or commercial activity.

In general we try to make rules to benefit the disadvantaged in society, not rules that primarily benefit those people who don't need rules.

unflushable

Liberalism was developed by rich men for rich men. It works for rich men because removing state interference benefits those who have enough power that they can interpret their lives as a series of choices, preferably unfettered by the need to consider other people. Not that all proponents of liberalism or even libertarianism take this to mean that prostitution is justified by a liberal / libertarian approach - even the generally loathsome Ayn Rand was opposed to prostitution.

Just as liberalism is neither good nor bad in itself, the overlap of views on a particular topic says nothing about an overlap between the beliefs that underlie any particular approach. The feminist approach to prostitution is based on fundamentally different analysis than that of patriarchal conservatives. Even liberals and conservatives overlap on some issues (such as murder or theft). The association of feminists with conservatives has generally been used to discredit feminist analysis by those too lazy or lacking in analysis to try to discredit it on its own foundations. Even you would likely agree with Pope Francis's views on murder.

anyoldlabour

The NZ definition of commercial sex services includes the requirement that that they "involve physical participation by a person in sexual acts with, and for the gratification of, another person" which is a telling and useful definition. There is nothing to suggest that the women you are talking about are not engaging in mutual sexual activity. It is a typically male patriarchal attitude to view women as the passive sex object whose gratification is not an element of sexual activity which is why men can come up with such shit that women voluntarily having sex are engaged in "free prostitution".

A lot of workers do it of their own free choice

How on earth could you possibly know that?

Are you a mind-reader?

Would you suck loads of strange cock every night?

(That's what that poor woman was doing in that car with HUGE GRANT that time, so if it's good enough for her it's good enough for you right? After all it's just work...)

Why the heck would a man decide to drag up a two year old thread to try to convince feminists why it's ok that he buys sex?

Oh my god, I hadn't even noticed that.

I've been back for a look and that has been done twice on this thread. Someone called Eamonn got his arse handed to him at the end of 2017 on this very thread and then that name stopped posting about then.

Hi, Eamonn.

I assume you are back posting under a new name.

I think rape apologists should spend more time with rocks of a grey hue.

if she's doing it out of a free choice, then it's fundamentally just two consenting adults, and I think that's all that matters.

We're back to selling kidneys now. Get with it.

HorsewithnoGender yes, I agree it's wrong IF the sex worker has been forced into it. But that's often not the case. A lot of workers do it of their own free choice, and when that's the case I don't see any problem with it. If a woman is only doing it because she's being forced then that is wrong, it is a problem, and society should intervene to prevent it. But if she's doing it out of a free choice, then it's fundamentally just two consenting adults, and I think that's all that matters. It's her body, if she chooses to use it in that way, that's her choice. What right do you have to interfere with her bodily autonomy?

I don't think of her as an object. She has no obligation to dance for me, and I don't feel entitled to that. I see it as a free trade. If she offers a dance, or I request one, and the other party is ok, then there is no problem. I don't feel I am being degraded or exploited and neither does she, and in my opinion that's all that matters. If other people don't agree with that industry then that's ok, but I feel they are wrong to try and force their moral values onto others. When you think about it, it's very belittling of the sex worker. You are basically telling her she isn't capable of making her own decisions about what work she is willing to do and what she does/doesn't find degrading.

It's just bigoted, you should be more tolerant of how others live their private lives.

Have you heard of something called 'exploitation'?

*as the object

You see the women and the object and yourself as the agent - however your lechy, creepy mug doesn't cease to exist when you are looking.

The one I told you about

Let's stop talking about your account of her choices and stick to exploring your choices shall we?

Ok so if the dancer feels they aren't being degraded, but you feel they are, who is correct? Who gets the ultimate say on whether an activity is degrading or not?

If you think that shelf stacking is better than doing sex work then fair enough, but that's a subjective opinion and other people may feel different. The one I told you about about the club I go to is pretty much of the opinion that while she COULD go and get a shelf stacking job or bar work, she prefers doing this instead. So there's no coercion, and it's her body, so why is her choices about what to do with her body any of your business?

So is my regular dancer wrong for selling me dances? Am I wrong for buying them?

You are wrong for buying them.

You should spend your money in ways that do not degrade and exploit women.

So is my regular dancer wrong for selling me dances? Am I wrong for buying them? I agree with your argument that it's wrong when the sex worker is forced into doing it, but I think you are wrong when it comes to workers who are doing it of their own free choice. I think if a woman chooses to sell her own body, it's her body and her right to decide that. I don't think you have the right to tell her what she should do with her own body. Does bodily autonomy mean nothing to you?

the rich can exploit the poor. In the shelf stacking example

Stacking shelves is not so bloody terrible is it, for a person with no qualifications?

There is a reason to get qualifications and move up in the world.

It is creepy when dudes who go to lapdancing clubs and use prostituted women hang out in the feminism section of a parenting site called mumsnet.

Why are they even here?

WeRiseUp you made a good comment about not being allowed to sell organs, and for what it's worth I agree with that point. But isn't the same true in every job, that the rich can exploit the poor. In the shelf stacking example, an employee is having to do certain things, to use their body in a certain way, in return for the company paying them money. Instead of dancing around a pole or having sex, they are having to move around a warehouse and a shopfloor for long hours at a time. What is the fundamental difference when the work being done in return for money is of a sexual nature?

AR are you incapable of seeing a wider context?