Prostitution / Pornography/ Surrogacy.

I'll go out on a limb here CritEqual but yes you might be on to something there but PJ can put you right if you're not.

I think the thing women are objecting to is that men being THAT rubbish in bed, that they are maybe bothering to please their partner once a year at christmas, maybe, if they are lucky really is a bit shit. Do you think that might be it?

A lot of women seem to agree with me on this one, actually.

No we don't, mate. But feel free to interpret reactions to Durex adverts (wtf) into giving you validation for your "the world owes me sex so cough up" mindset if it's so desperately, deeply important to you.

If no one in the world fancied you, would you abstain from sex completely, or would you be prepared to have sex with people that weren't attracted to you (regardless of their motivation, financial or otherwise)?

I'd buy a vibrator.

VERY good point PJ, so we can move the discussion on towards discussion of consent and maybe perhaps making enthusiastic participation as the bar instead of a mere "yes".

Here's a little ponderable...

If she said 'I am disease free, don't use a condom' - would you believe that aspect of her profile?

I do understand what you are saying about trying to choose someone who doesn't seem under any duress and who is happy to have you as a client, I get that - I just think it's a bit naive to be so sure it's a sound process, and that she's just not a better saleswoman than you are a discerning judge.

To be fair, if / when you sleep with anybody you can never be 100% sure of the motives - and that's true in a ONS, or even a stable relationship. So paying a prostitute at least confirms it's a financial / sexual motive you both know where you stand.

I just don't like that it's funding an industry that ultimately isn't empowering women, to my mind it's an industry that is selling a woman's body for man's pleasure and I can't support that. It's a lot more difficult to resolve at a personal / individual level, but at the macro level it's simple for me. It's a no thank you.

Look my dude just a small observation, stop making sex the end goal and just treat life like the adventure it is. Meet some people, have some fun, you'll find sex (and really good sex at that!) will happen more often than you might think.

If no one in the world fancied you, would you abstain from sex completely, or would you be prepared to have sex with people that weren't attracted to you (regardless of their motivation, financial or otherwise)?

It's pretty telling that you think other people's answer to that would be "oh gosh no, I'd still require someone out there to provide me with the sex I consider myself entitled to, whatever their motivation."

First of all NO-ONE is 100% at detecting deception. Even if you are naturally talanted and recieve training you're looking at little over 50% at detecting lies. So you're "screening" I'm afraid is simply put impossible.

You still have a margin of error and unless you're going to lay claim to magic powers of some kind you can't. Ergo you are basically willing to accept the risk you ARE hurting someone, and ultimately don't care.

Part of the whole thing you're buying is this notion of consequence free sex so of course everyone involved is financially incentivised to allow you that delusion. So again why should anyone listen to you in this debate as clearly your orgams > other people?

Nah, it's your needs first and foremost - your need for the physical stimulation. That is the driving force.
Her 'rules' are just the boundaries you need to operate in to meet your need.
If you didn't have that initial need, you wouldn't be visiting her.

You have a need - she fulfils it with conditions.
Her need is the money, and you fulfil her need.

The key difference being - it would be better for you if you could have your needs met for free and it would be better for her to get the money without having to have the sex.

You are disgusting pj

Sick of pathetic men like you, thinking you have the right to fuck unwilling women for money, and claim you're doing no harm. What kind of person has sex with someone who doesn't fancy them? You make my skin crawl.

And yes, there will be some examples of folks who just like casual sex, and would do it for free - so getting paid is a bonus? what does that prove? - nothing

I don't actually believe this happens. I had loads of casual sex in my late teens/early 20s. There is a myth perhaps that being willing to have casual sex must involve applying no discrimination about who with. Oddly I never had sex with any man having any of these characteristics- smelly, fat, short, bald, sweaty, grubby, badly dressed or boring, or if I'm being honest in a lower- socio-economic class.

And the solution to violence is for men to stop violating women.
It's not to 'police it better'.

I don't disagree that since men can't / won't stop being violent, that better policing is needed, but that's not really a solution, it's a measure in reduction.

And yes I know male prostitutes suffer too - again at the hands of men, predominantly.

How do you square the fact that the more you do it the more the chances of you contributing to someones abuse get closer to 1:1? I mean sure I don't know where the precise ratio of happy hookers/ desperate abuse victims is, nobody does exactly. But unless you believe NO women are suffering in prostitution then the fact is you might be able to get away with doing it once or twice without causing harm, but the more you do it you come to the inescapable fact that yours becomes one of the indelible faces that will continue to haunt some poor woman for the rest of her life.

You mean get closer to "1." In statistics, "1" is certainty.

But the answer is simple; I screen the women I visit. When I find them online, I check how their profile is written, and I ensure the women I am visiting are well-established independent sex workers.

It's very easy to spot bad profiles. If the profile has a fake photograph, is offering extreme services (unprotected sex, for example), and is a new profile with no client feedback, then it's more likely (but not certain) to be (a) dangerous for myself, if I get mugged by a group of men, for example or (b) an exploited women. So I avoid those profiles and stick to women with an established reputation.

I don't like to see people suffer

I agree with that, which is why I take care to ensure I'm not harming anyone.

So what you're advocating is...

A nicer environment for you to fuck a woman as part of a financial transaction, and providing there's no physical harm to her, it's gotta be ok?
Why not have a wank at home, go and pay her for 1 hour and let her take a break? I'll tell you why, because you're putting your physical needs first. You care about you first, her second (if at all).

You're ultimately trying to justify why a wank is doing her a favour by giving her employment in the process. Very good of you.

strange how torn did not answer the question about high class hookers and whether or not they are desperate

I guess that does not fit in with the echo chamber narrative

I'm not sure what the question was but I have already said whether or not a woman was coerced makes no difference to my objection to prostitution.

The high class hookers a la Brooke Magnani are part of the problem. It is generally taken on here that one should not criticise prostituted women but I step out of line here. The Belle de Jours facilitate and try to normalise being a prostitute as just being another job. They aren't quite in the same league as pimps and punters but they are part of the problem.

strange how torn did not answer the question about high class hookers and whether or not they are desperate.
I guess that does not fit in with the echo chamber narrative.

There is no narrative. High class hookers being desperate? You're trying to legitimise an industry by finding examples where exploitation seems less likely, or doesn't exist. You might as well be arguing that there aren't starving children in some nations because there are also fat folks eating well in that country

Nobody has said every woman (or man) is coerced. Nobody has said some might actually the sex, can choose their clients and get well paid for it. Not one person has said that cannot happen.

What I have said is that the existence of such people does not undermine the fact that the majority are not doing it for the joy of it, they are not doing it because it's well rewarded, they ARE doing it because they feel it's their only option - and as a result of that, they are frequently exploited and abused.

Putting a glamour facia on a predominantly shitty industry doesn't make it smell or look any sweeter.
Saying 'I wouldn't make a prostitute do anything she didn't want to' doesn't stop prostitutes being raped.
Saying 'what about the high class call girls who seemingly love their jobs' - they love the rewards, they might be fortunate enough to be able to choose clients they don't detest. Even the majority of high class call girls would probably rather have the money without having to endure the sex.

And yes, there will be some examples of folks who just like casual sex, and would do it for free - so getting paid is a bonus? what does that prove? - nothing.

The solution to violence is improved safety. Allowing sex workers to work indoors in groups, improved screening of clients, and improved surveillance of clients would all reduce violence. Note that your statistics sometimes refer to "street-based" workers. No sex worker should be wandering around streets on their own.