Is prostitution rape?

AnyFucker

Where do these fucking punters crawl out from ?

P*net dog whistle still working maybe? Would explain why, yet again, we're being drawn away from the discussion at hand to discuss happy hookers, and not men's choices. Plus ca change, eh?

I believe that any man who has sex with prostitutes is a rapist, because he is willing to rape women.
Some prostitutes will believe they consented and I think you cant deny them the right to say they have consented, but by paying for sex the man has absolutely no clue if they have truelly consented. he is essentially paying to bypass consent. The man doesn't care if the woman wants to have sex with him at all, thats why he is paying, thats the entire point of paying.
A man uses a prostitute because he wants to have sex that is doesn't involve a woman's wants or a woman wanting to have sex with him. And that makes him a rapist.

As far as "free choice" for me although I kind of did make a free choice I was only able to contemplate making that choice as a result of multiple factors in my life at the time.

Little self confidence

Low earning capability

Job that exposed me to all kinds if people from.business people to Drs to pimps...

Embarrassment of getting myself into the situation by trying to help out a boyfriend in the first place.

And a complete desensitization to anything people could say/do

So it was a free choice as far as I got myself into it and I could get myself out of it.

But still a product of circumstances up to that point

If any of that makes sense

@birds,

That's already been addressed. Consent based on drugs and coercion isn't really consent. I am not disputing that.

I am talking about women, some who have posted here, who haven't been abused, don't take drugs and are not coerced. When it is a free choice.

Of course it does. If consent is based on drug use, coercion and a history of sexual assault.

@birds

That doesn't address the validity of paid consent and the distinction between being paid to touching someone's back and their privates.

MrGHardy can you honestly not see the difference between being the actual person inflicting the actual harm?

I think the point for me is the clients don't know that. Out of the clients they pay, a good many are very vulnerable.

But I know it's not the case that they're all from that kind of background. And as I said, of those that are it's not the clients who have raped them, unless they are actually underage in which case it is rape.

And the sky high number of prostitutes who have been sexually abused as children. Why have they not become massage therapists instead if there's no real difference. Just a massive coincidence.

Everyone already agrees that people that have been coerced or are addicted to drugs aren't consenting. We are talking about women (or any prostitute) that freely gives their consent. The issue some have is regarding consent and money. I am pointing out that it's OK to be paid money to consent to rub someone's body. I wouldn't exclude the genitals in that transaction? It's just a body part.

Again, talking specifically about women who claim to truly and freely consent. No coercion or drugs or abuse.

I am talking about in regards to consenting adults.

I thought that was a given.

Their back, not your back

As massage therapist is paid money to consent to relieve stress and tension in others, using your hands to touch the skin of a client. Why is the extension of touching genitals such a massive hurdle?

Because genitals are different. If your child is upset, you might rub your back, you certainly wouldn't rub their vulva/penis. The sexual organs are not the same as a nose or an elbow, and it is disingenuous to pretend that they are.

When as a group massage therapists have an incredibly high rate of drug use, coercion and child sexual abuse in those who practice massage therapy then I would want to be looking at that group to see what was going on.

No prostitution in itself isn't rape unless trafficking has been involved. But from what I've read about it a significant number of sex workers have been suffered sexual abuse and are now drug takers. So that means they're damaged and vulnerable and the clients are exploiting them. Not all, but I think it's true of a lot of them.

I always think of the Friar from Romeo and Juliet saying 'My poverty but not my will consents"

People can freely sell their bodies in lots of ways without being considered an object.

As massage therapist is paid money to consent to relieve stress and tension in others, using your hands to touch the skin of a client. Why is the extension of touching genitals such a massive hurdle?

If I can consent and be paid to rub a hairy guys back why can't I consent and be paid to rub his privates?

You see these two things as qualitatively different and I don't:

"1) consent being irrelevant: kidney donation for money (it's still a crime, regardless of consent)

2. Money having changed hands automatically negating consent. (prostitution as automatically rape)"

What if I rephrased #2,

2. Bribery to abuse a woman's reproductive organs (it's still a crime, regardless of consent)

"I'm on the fence...my knowledge of prostitution consists of watching Pretty Woman and reading Belle du Jour so I'm not really qualified to comment."

That doesn't stop many other posters......

SelmaAndJubjub, you're looking at the degree of force applied instead of the measure of harm inflicted

silage

No, I am really not. I work with rape survivors and am well aware of the many types of coercion that can be used.

I am exploring the analogies used by posters and explaining the difference between:

1. consent being irrelevant: kidney donation for money (it's still a crime, regardless of consent)

2. Money having changed hands automatically negating consent. (prostitution as automatically rape)

The point I am making is that consent is irrelevant in kidney donation, as it should be in prostitution. That's why I think prostitution should be treated as modern slavery -where consent is also irrelevant. But that is totally different from saying that the exchange of money automatically means that consent hasn't been given. Prostitution should be illegal because consent is irrelevant, not because money magically erases consent

There are very intelligent women on this thread. Surely, some of you can see how dangerous it would be to enshrine in law the idea that adult women cannot determine whether or not they have given consent to sex?

I'm on the fence...my knowledge of prostitution consists of watching Pretty Woman and reading Belle du Jour so I'm not really qualified to comment.

Bribery and extortion are illegal because the coercive influence of money is acknowledged by courts. That the person blackmailed consented to coerced payments doesn't un-crime the shakedown.

The best they can usually come up with its not their responsibility and bring up sweatshops in India making all our trainers or some such bollocks. To which my response: "Ok you may not be holding the whip, but unlike the sweatshops in India you ARE the whip ie the instrument inflicting the damage." At which point it's usually ....

So you are happy to condemn punters as the whip, but yourself are happy to buy goods from sweatshops? Don't you see the hypocrisy?

Personally I agree that buying sex should be illegal, but mostly because of the amount of violence in the industry (as a summary term for everything, actual physical or trafficking, etc.). But at the same time I believe that some women are perfectly capable of "consenting" to paid sex. And anyway, the whole idea of consent needs to be taught from a very young age. You will not convince men, or other women for that matter, who will go "muh free will" (anyone ever notice how very often these MRAs also tend to be starkly pro free market and "free" speech). One has to learn early to understand.

SelmaAndJubjub, you're looking at the degree of force applied instead of the measure of harm inflicted.

It's a common outlook, but too outdated to be useful now that we as a society understand "force" beyond blunt trauma. Because the fact is that no one has ever been held down and had their kidney ripped out, even if just chemical coercion through drugging was used against them. Power very rarely operates like a caveman with a club.

Few rapists hold down and "rip" their victims, coerced rape is much more common, be it chemically coerced rape (alcohol, drugs, roofies), emotionally coerced rape (fear of harm, religious duty, guilt), or economically coerced rape (cash, gifts, rent).

Most prostitues no more freely consent to sex with punters than very poor people freely consent to sell a kidney. Buying either should be illegal.

Yes, that's what the Nordic model does - Ireland has just adopted it and we should too. But it doesn't follow from that that all prostitution is rape. There are many things that we don't allow people to sell, even with the full and free consent of both parties, organs being one of them.

Honestly, People, just take 2 seconds to think about any rape trial if the law started treating all prostitution as rape and saying that adult women cannot determine whether or not they have consented.

Defence barrister: Did you consent?

Rape victim: No

Defence barrister: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the Law recognises that women do not always know whether they have consented. We have enshrined this in Law in the Prostitution is Rape Act 2018. The Law recognised that women are vulnerable and do not always understand whether they have given consent. Can you really say, beyond reasonable doubt, Ladies and Gentlemen, that this women knew whether she consented, when the Law tells us that thousands of women don't?