Why do men use prostitutes?

I was recently told by two women at a friends dinner that 'little girls may very well grow up wanting to be prostitutes'..

When I hear people talking shite like that I ask them if they think "sex work" should be promoted in schools by careers advisors and if not why not?

After all it's just work right?

I very much fear that the hardcore criminal gangs will continue sex trafficking whatever strategy is used with regards to prostitution..

Even if that's true I do not believe it's a reason to do nothing.

It can be really hard to catch murderers but nobody would suggest that we therefore should do away with the law regarding killing?

I could think of several reasons, one of them being the 'cool girl mentality' that even women in their 40's have in response to the oppression and subjugation of women in the sex industry. I was recently told by two women at a friends dinner that 'little girls may very well grow up wanting to be prostitutes'.. if not for my pounding head I would have stuck around to tell them all the reasons they're absolutely wrong, but alas, sometimes you just have to know when to give up.

I very much fear that the hardcore criminal gangs will continue sex trafficking whatever strategy is used with regards to prostitution. The victims are mostly too terrified to come forward. If they don't come forward, it doesn't much matter what the law says about prostitutes and punters.

Trafficking victims are often afraid of the police as well, as they're mostly in the country illegally.

Flora-the usual ad hominem attack. Why don't you deal with the long list of objections that Weitzer summarizes instead of attacking the (supposed) views of the author?

I did provide a brief one liner on what was wrong with the original paper (Cho, S. Y., Dreher, A., & Neumayer, E. (2012). Does legalized prostitution increase human trafficking? World Development, 41,67–82) here. I would invite readers to read both the Weitzer and Cho papers.

Another problem with the Cho paper (besides as I mentioned the fact that the trafficking figures are not collected in a uniform way from country to country-include labour trafficking, people smuggling as well as sex trafficking-so CANNOT be Compared) and should have been clear to any decent editor and is illustrated in fig.1 which summarizes the data.

What the figure claims to show is the relationship between trafficking and legalization of prostitution in a number of different countries. It is a scatter plot through which the authors have drawn a gently up-sloping line-which is the claim they are trying to make. If you look at the raw data-it is all over the shop-no competent editor of a scientific journal should have accepted that-its pretty much garbage-as is the rest of the paper. It is all very well trying to cover the scatter in the data with statistics but its always best to look at the raw data instead of the summary tables.

Now it could be that there is a relationship between legalization and trafficking but this paper is not good enough to show that for sure.

How do you present the case to them..

When it's illegal we won't have to.

We don't "present a case" to rapists or others who commit crime, do we?

The sooner this is done away with the better, it degrades humans as a group.

From the linked BBC item:

.. Some 42,000 young people have added their signatures, which means the issue will be debated by politicians in a country that has some of the most relaxed laws around paying for sex.

Excellent! We have some smart young people here too; let's hope ours are inspired to take similar action.

Why do men use prostitutes? Same question as why does a dog lick its bollocks.

because they can

I haven't read all 13 pages, so apologies if this has already been raised;

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47865363

Thoughts? It's a Christian-inspired movement apparently. The church hardly has an inspiring record on women's rights and status, but it is worthwhile? And what of collectives run by the prostitutes themselves, such as Proud (referenced at the end of the article? How do you present the case to them, and who does it?

Also totally agree with Lass. There’s no comparison between mutually desires consensual sex and sex performed for the gratification for one person only who pays to overcome the lack desire from the other person.

Weitzer is a pro-prostitution advocate whereas Prof Neumayer doesn’t take a position on legalization or decriminalization.

Why don’t you summarize what you think is wrong with the LSE paper and outline why Weitzer’s bias doesn’t affect his approach?

Flora, I am afraid the paper you cite attempting to prove a relationship between decriminalisation of prostitution and trafficking is a travesty. The “trafficking” figures for some countries conflate people smuggling, illegal migration and include labour trafficking as well as sex trafficking.

For a fuller take down of that paper see here p85 para 2 et seq.

And what lass said tuesday night...

If that approach should be used, should it also be applied to nail salons and car washes, since those too are large draws for the traffickers

Yeah why not

They would go to these meetings with the intention of ending up in bed with famous drivers/riders, staying in nice hotels and enjoying fine dining
They were probably doing this half a dozen times a year, for them it was glamorous and they were getting rewarded
In effect, they were doing to men what men do to female prostitutes

There is absolutely no comparison here. None at all. I can't drum up the slightest concern or disapproval here. What is being described is consenting adults having consensual casual sex.

Women and children are trafficked because there is demand from men who want to buy them. Bringing down demand is the key to fighting trafficking and all forms of coercion. So you go after the johns and go after them hard. Criminal records, fines / jail sentences and public shame. Treat them the same way other sex offenders are treated.

Prostitution is nothing to do with work. The prostituted women are the products, not labourers or service providers. A 13 year old with no experience is worth far more to the rapists than a 30 year old with 12 years experience. Because it is the woman or the child's body that is being sold, as a commodity to be consumed. Experienced workers are worth more than inexperienced workers, but fresh commodities are worth more than used commodities.

these responses confirm that the decriminalisation model would be best for sex worker safety, and that the Nordic model would contribute to violence against sex workers.

And yet the evidence does not support this punter logic.

I'm not sure banning and heavy policing would be effective in stopping trafficking

The evidence suggests it is effective:

www.lse.ac.uk/website-archive/newsAndMedia/newsArchives/2012/12/Legalised-prostitution-increases-human-trafficking.aspx

My point remains, that men who approach sex workers have no way of knowing whether the woman they're paying for sex is there willingly.

In practical terms, how should this be addressed? While I wish it wouldn't happen, I'm not sure banning and heavy policing would be effective in stopping trafficking, even if only those paying were targeted for prosecution, if anything, it seems like it would force out the (debatable number) of willing participants. If that approach should be used, should it also be applied to nail salons and car washes, since those too are large draws for the traffickers?

The Scottish National Party considers buying sex as a form of violence against women

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scottish-national-party-conference-aberdeen-sex-work-prostitution-criminalisation-nordic-model-ash-a7637261.html%3famp

Are you referring to this? I emailed them at the time asking when it might be implemented and got the vaguest of replies.

I apologise for generalising. But I'm involved with a charity that helps women who have been victims of trafficking, so that has shaped my views inevitably. And millions of women are trafficked into prostitution, so a lot are not willing, however you look at it.

I've read the stories of women in prostitution who were previously victims of sexual abuse, so it is a factor. And women don't always disclose sexual abuse, so we won't know the actual numbers.

Okay, yes there probably are more women who are there willingly than I thought, I concede that I don't know enough about that to comment, and once again I apologise.

My point remains, that men who approach sex workers have no way of knowing whether the woman they're paying for sex is there willingly. I very much doubt that they spend time worrying about that.

The Scottish National Party considers buying sex as a form of violence against women.

It proposes to change the law to a Scottish version of the Nordic Model, where buyers will be prosecuted and placed on the Sex Offenders register, I believe.

That's a pretty clear message to men who try to excuse themselves. There is no excuse.

Lizzie48 says:
a lot of women in prostitution go into it to feed a drug addiction. While it is true that many if not most of street prostitutes are there to feed a habit-the majority of prostitution is indoors and all the survey evidence says drug habits are rare in this group.

Same goes for her statement A lot have been sexually abused in the past as well -while this is certainly true for some-mostly the disadvantaged street workers it is certainly not true for the majority as countless properly conducted surveys attest.

Also some women who choose freely to sell their bodies, but I suspect they're in the minority -you suspect they are the minority-so in other words you are just guessing-again surveys of those in prostitution-especially those working indoors (who are the majority) are generally happy with their occupation (see here and here)
So perhaps base your views on the evidence rather than supposition?

Oh and incidentally there have been a large number of Mumsnet threads on prostitution where a large number of current and ex prostitutes have told you like it is. Some have had dire experiences but many have good experiences-including many of those who have exited prostitution..

I know - cardinal sin , only reading the first page but:

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.

Bullshit. The women I have spoken to in prostitution (and I have had reason to) say the vast majority of punters are married, so that doesn't quite hold up. Probably been said by others by now but lets not pretend that prostitutes offer some service to ugly socially awkward men, no, even the ones in relationships already use them.

Apologies again, I know the thread will have moved on.

I think it's truer to say that a man visiting a prostitute is potentially paying for rape, as there's no way that he can know that the woman he's paying for sex hasn't been trafficked. Trafficking victims are hardly going to tell them that they haven't consented, they tend to be terrified for their lives.

Men paying for sex also contribute to the demand for prostitutes, which is why it's worth their while for traffickers to force vulnerable women into prostitution.

Also, a lot of women in prostitution go into it to feed a drug addiction, so that isn't exactly what I would call genuine consent. A lot have been sexually abused in the past as well.

There will, obviously, be some women who choose freely to sell their bodies, but I suspect they're in the minority.

"Ffs. No they weren't doing to men what men do to prostitutes. Not even close. Not even slightly similar. What a completely pointless "comparison".

They had a day job and their weekend entertainment, involved going to a location to offer their bodies and be lavished with food and wine from men who had no intention of having a relationship with them.
You are actually quite right, that it is not similar to what men do to prostitutes, but it is voluntary prostitution.

unflushable, thank you very much for your explanation. I appreciate your bravery in doing so here considering you were likely aware of the reception you'd be given.

More generally, regarding prostitution = paying for rape, I disagree with that logic on two points (though I'd just like to be clear that I don't support and encourage prostitution). Firstly, because it's a blanket definition being applied to all prostitutes and therefore supposes that there are no women capable of rationally consenting, which I find infantilising. Secondly, broadly defining any transaction involving money as coercive would mean that any work done for pay becomes slavery.