Why do men use prostitutes?

There's no issue with casual sex, in that arrangement both parties are there to get off on it, it's fun for both sides.

That's often not the case. One party is often involved because they think sex might lead to love, or because they're drunk, or because they're subject to peer pressure, or because they've been abused - or for a million other reasons.

The only way both parties could find out for sure that the other is there for fun, is if they spent some time getting to know one another. But then of course they would be in a RELATIONSHIP and they wouldn't be having CASUAL sex.

Asked DH for a male perspective, his answer was:

A: No emotional attachment
B: They are lazy, less effort goes into paying a woman.

Then why hatred - that's a very strong word. I can see some men not having any respect for prostitutes, but hatred, really ?

I should think some of these men do hate women, or at least have very little respect for them. Anyone who uses another person for sexual gratification has little respect for them - whether money is changing hands or not.

042 You have to put in something about hate too, or they would give you any credence. Its a big thing on here, the idea that 'men hate women'. Tosh, but hey-ho.

Your second has some merit, but exposes that what men want is a female body to give them an orgasm, with no interest in putting any kind of effort in.

Lots of them do. Fact of life.

People put 'effort' into relationships. The whole idea of casual sex however is that people's sexual appetites are satisfied with the least possible effort - with 'no strings attached' as they say. You have no emotional investment in the other person. You might feel obliged to be civil to them, but they are basically a fuck - an instrument of pleasure. Just like as you might be civil to your plumber, his or her purpose to you is to fix the leak in your bathroom. This is what casual sex is.

If people - men - who juts want a fuck feel that it is too hard to get on Tinder or wherever, then they might be inclined to simply pay a woman. They might be ugly or inadequate, or they may have simply been swiping right (or is it left - I honestly wouldn't know) all day with no success.

By the way, I am not in any sense morally excusing this logic, or prostitution, just saying that, when it comes down to it, this is what is happening.

Having read the article, I'm not surprised by some of the responses. I was, however, particularly disturbed by the man not wanting the prostitute to experience the pleasure and that he'd feel cheated if she did. That's pure misogyny right there. Many of them also dismissive of the possibility of trafficking and abuse. Some justifying the need to pay it the other option is to rape....

The excuses go on and on but somehow we are still to blame and that it's not they're fault that they NEED to wank into something.

I'm not even convinced that the men believe that they actually hate women. They just see women as commodities. A large section of men consciously or subconsciously see women as being there for domestic and sexual servitude.

Most cultures across the world still feed this to boys from an early age.

Because they hate women?

Yes, and it went into lots of interesting details. But I should think they're the core reasons. Men who lack the social skills or looks to go out and pull someone for casual sex just pay for someone instead. All the stuff about their childhoods etc is secondary.

I want to make a very clear distinction between 'reasons' and justifications. I'm not making excuses for them.

Quite possibly:

1. Because they're ugly and no one wants to have sex with them for free.

2. Because it's easier and quicker than going out on the pull.

Men use prostitutes because it's ingrained into them from an early age that they are entitled to sex, that they need sex, that it's their right to have and that women, especially a certain type of woman are there for men's convenience.

I am not fooled by a moment by the claims that it is to make prostituted women safer.

^ This.

I've been watching the BBC series about the decriminalised zone in Leeds, with mounting dismay.

If any other marginalised/oppressed group were so unremittingly and consistently abused within the mainstream as women are, there would be outcry.

Well, obviously. If they didn't want to rape, there would be no demand for doing just that.

Surprised they dread the employer finding out more than their wives finding out. Apparently, when the Nordic Model was first implemented in Sweden, some policemen didn't apply it as intended and were very understanding about men's wish to have the letters concerning their crime sent to their workplace instead of their home address.

Perhaps things have changed. More women in high ranking positions, I suppose; if a man's boss is a woman, he can't hope for her to be so understanding of his wish to rape a woman for pay.

Not sure how that squares with the full decriminalisation model.

Um, full decriminalisation isn't meant to stop prostitution, it is meant to ensure that men have access to prostitutes, and for that, it works pretty well, now, doesn't it?
I am not fooled by a moment by the claims that it is to make prostituted women safer.