Empowered by 'sex work'

I profoundly disagree with that conclusion. In all of the situations you describe the parties involved are seeking a mutual and consensual relationship. It might be brief and lacking in any commitment and you might not approve of it but it is nothing like prostitution.

There's also the fact that some of this stuff doesn't in any way reflect how the majority of people live or experience sex and relationships. How many people are either in the Rolling Stones or having orgies with them, really? The majority sexual behavior for the last few generations seem to be a period of relative promiscuity in youth for some followed by serial monogamy. People may as a result have more sex partners in total than they did prior to the sexual revolution, but most people aren't out there sport fucking on a regular and ongoing basis. And even for those who are that's very different to being in the sex industry.

I've known prostitutes who were lesbians. Then again most punters think lesbians are mythical creatures, sort of like an evil man hating version of bigfoot, and can be cured by their penis, so...

Ask him how he feels about selling access to his anus and his mouth and, when he says that's different (he will), point out that no, it's not. Don't let him dodge the question.

10 to 1 says he'll say "but I'm straight." That's what the last punter I posed that question to said.

These fuckwits are not only misogynistic, they're steeped in homophobia, so they can't see that an unwanted penis in any orifice, regardless of one's sexuality, is a complete and utter and traumatising violation.

I had someone argue that we all sell our bodies if we work, we just sell our muscles to stack beans or dig roads etc, and if I think selling my vagina is different to selling my arm and leg muscles that's just my hang-ups about my genitals. I still haven't worked out the answer to that one.

Ask him how he feels about selling access to his anus and his mouth and, when he says that's different (he will), point out that no, it's not. Don't let him dodge the question.

Yes, I agree insideandout3 - it's a form of society-wide Stockholm syndrome, where you come to identify with your abuser and their ideology, because the alternative (recognising that they are abusing you, will continue to abuse you and actually like abusing you, and that you are utterly powerless to do anything about this) would cause psychological self-destruction.

It explains women who are pro misogynistic porn, pro prostitution, pro rape fantasies, pro "choking is just sexy BDSM fun times, innit."

"That the whole women can do what men do and have lots of sex is damaging and too simplistic."

i think it's a survival strategy. Women submersed in rape culture are pushed to intentionally reduce the significance of sex because if sex isn't important then they can tell themselves the sexual abuse men have inflicted on them isn't important either.

That men have globally established brothels, rape slavery networks politely called trafficking, flourishing pornography industries, and entire countries in SE Asia where the GNP depends on prostitution sure points to sex being incredibly significant to men's sense of self.

but someone always pulls out the exception to the rule (e.g. the Belle de Jour type wearing agent provocateur in posh hotels and working to fund her PhD) as a counter argument against the lack of choice/disadvantaged women arguement.

And I always say OK, take away poor women, trafficked women, women who started this underage, addicted women, women with abusive partners, women abused in childhood and homeless women... how many women do you think are left? They would be millionaires. Because there wouldn't be 5 quid blows jobs with none of those women available. There wouldn't be ugly, smelly, dirty, violent men getting sex because those women would be able to choose. There wouldn't be mega brothels or red lights districts.

The whole industry runs on abuse, addiction and poverty. Not empowerment.

Everything in the above post. The OP mentions Netflix. If people are getting their ideas of what prostitution is like from Netflix then they really have no right to speak on the subject!

1. Having a summer job as a teenager can be beneficial, having your body sold is abuse.

Thoughts:

1. Boys are never told prostitution is empowering.
2. If any other job comes with a risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease you’re doing your job wrong,
3. I find pro-prostitution views are mainly touted by self-identified ‘communists’ that are happy to sell women’s bodies from their iPhones.
4. Much like porn women that say prostitution is liberating are saying so because at some point a man has told them that’s ‘the truth’.

extreme promiscuity is not a good idea. It seems like we have chucked out all sexual morality as old fashioned religious, women hating rubbish without considering that moderation might be better for us both physically and mentally.

That’s what I think too. That the whole women can do what men do and have lots of sex is damaging and too simplistic. At some point, the feminist movement confused the freedom to do x, means it is also good to do x. No one really sat and thought just because we can, should we? Is it actually a good thing?

Her point was I thought an interesting one. When people think that sex is basically a fun leisure activity and anything goes how can they be made to see the significance and harm of prostitution (or porn or or even sex assault)

I'm really struggling to understand how anyone can't see the difference between "a fun leisure activity" and only agreeing to have sex if you are paid. I think the point is spurious.

And for the avoidance of any doubt I dont think feminists are prudes and I am firmly against prostitution.

Honestly I think you have misinterpreted what @goosefoot has been saying. She is against prostitution.

Her point was I thought an interesting one. When people think that sex is basically a fun leisure activity and anything goes how can they be made to see the significance and harm of prostitution (or porn or or even sex assault)

Anyway I thought it was an interesting point and might explain why lots of people think feminists are prudes etc.

A woman who wanted to have sex with hundreds of strange men, like you say, a porny unreality inside, wouldn’t need to be paid if she wanted it. The money is there because she doesn’t actually want it.

Women who have to endure men’s invasions of their bodies generally disassociate their mind from their body and feelings, something else not required in other jobs.

"the social harm argument does not say that it is not possible for a person to freely consent to sex for money"

Who cares about the philosophical possibility of the Happiest Hooker? Your philosophical pondering of the infinitesimal possibility some woman some where really wants to be sexually submissive to hundreds of strange men is porny unreality.

I'm going to paraphrase Catherine MacKinnon, "People often say something is good in theory but not in practice, and I suggest they revisit the question of the original theory's quality based on the emergent evidence."

I have Brooke Magnati's book and even with the glasses wanker left out, it still doesn't seem like fun. The typical pharmacy shopping list with cystitis powders and thrush cream tells you that Magnati was regularly getting cystitis and thrush from her "job"; tell me what other job causes repeat infections in that way with no recourse to Occy Health?

Would men take a job that meant they'd have to shag all comers, even the smelly mingers, and they'll end up pissing battery acid and have fungus growing on their cocks?

As long as there is no coercion it's fine

Yes, exactly. If someone believes that, it's an uphill battle to see it as different

No it isn't- it really isn't. The coercion is only having sex with someone because you are paid too.

However most people's view is now that any form of consensual sexual behaviour between adults is absolutely fine, so the issue of prostitution for them hangs on the definition of consent. As long as there is no coercion it's fine.

Yes, exactly. If someone believes that, it's an uphill battle to see it as different. The best you can do IMO is likely to be to show that it is so often destructive and coerced due to the financial and social pressures that it shouldn't be allowed.

I profoundly disagree with that conclusion. In all of the situations you describe the parties involved are seeking a mutual and consensual relationship. It might be brief and lacking in any commitment and you might not approve of it but it is nothing like prostitution.

Why not? We don't usually say that people cannot have a mutually satisfying exchange because money is involved, or they can't consent. I can consent to all kinds of risky financial activities. And lots of sex is transactional, I get something out of it I want, and so does he, and nothing more, and I can consent to that. If sex is really just not that big a deal, why would it not be ok to exchange it for money?

In any case that is the rational a lot of people are following.

Goosefoot took exception to this and sees a clean split, deeming social harm "the easiest argument to make around prostitution." and suggesting the harms men do to prostituted women are the results of individual bad decisions that people have the freedom rights to make.

Oh, FFS. If you are going to deliberately completely misrepresent what I've said, I'm not going to talk to you, you'r discussing in bad faith.

So, a marriage ending because the husband uses prostitutes, harm to the people in that family or harm to the institution of marriage? A neighborhood where men constantly solicit women and kids for sex, harmful to people or harmful to the state? AIDS being spread by a prostitute-using man, harmful to people or to what you call the social fabric?

I feel like you aren't really reading the thread, just looking at things to jump on. I said way back that I thought social harms were the easiest argument to make, and most likely to be accepted by those who have a different view about sexuality and individual sexual choices.

There are certain limitations to those kinds of arguments. One is that you have to convince people the social harm is greater than the harm of restricting individual freedoms, and in our kind of government that tends to be a high bar so it is not always easy to convince people of that. You also have to show that empirically restricting prostitution does work to reduce the social harm. If all of a sudden we found some other model that actually reduced harm more, you'd have a problem with your argument.

And then, the social harm argument does not say that it is not possible for a person to freely consent to sex for money, even if it shows that often that doesn't happen. So if you want to say that it is not possible, you have to find another argument.

The bits and pieces you and a few others have been quoting from my posts were about other arguments besides social harm, about the intrinsic status of trading sex for money and why that might be a problem, or why people might not think it is. I said this specifically. So why are you trying to tell me its a social harm?

I realise its sometimes difficult to follow multiple posts but its nearly impossible to discuss a complex subject this way.

I think that it came out of various elements of the sexual revolution. The idea that sex is an insignificant act that requires no real thought or worries, that can be pursued casually with strangers as a pass time. Where it is perfectly ok to have sex parties with members of a rock band for the prestige, or in return for back stage access. Where people are told again and again that sex isn't about pregnancy in any important way so it doesn't matter if you know the potential father, and that you can easily prevent STIs. Where women are as empowered by these attitudes as men

If you accept all these ideas, it's difficult to see any real difference from sex for money

I profoundly disagree with that conclusion. In all of the situations you describe the parties involved are seeking a mutual and consensual relationship. It might be brief and lacking in any commitment and you might not approve of it but it is nothing like prostitution.

Another thread recently on MN had a link to the Saafe website - sex workers forum. It was an eye opener to me and they do discuss their perceived positives and negatives in their work. I feel more confused after reading it.

@Goosefoot your comments resonate with me.

Sex is different from other activities. We all know the huge damage for example child sexual abuse can do to both girls and boys.

However most people's view is now that any form of consensual sexual behaviour between adults is absolutely fine, so the issue of prostitution for them hangs on the definition of consent. As long as there is no coercion it's fine.

However I am not sure I agree with this.
My belief is that because throughout human history sex has usually resulted in pregnancy it is a psychologically significant act especially for women. That's because having a child with someone is one of the most fundamentally important decisions women can make. There is emotion connected to sex as well, as the couple bond (fall in love) to prepare for the task of raising a child together. Just because we can now use contraception doesn't mean we can just switch off the emotional and psychological implications of sex and attempting to do so takes its toll.

However for example this viewpoint also leads me to think that extreme promiscuity is not a good idea. It seems like we have chucked out all sexual morality as old fashioned religious, women hating rubbish without considering that moderation might be better for us both physically and mentally.

“Cho, Dreher, and Neumayer (2013) found that across 150 countries, when prostitution was legal, there was increased trafficking. Similar overlaps between legal prostitution and trafficking have been reported in the European Union (Jakobsson & Kotsadam, 2013; Leem & Persson, 2013; Osmanaj, 2014) and in the U.S.(Heiges, 2009). In a review of reports on adults in prostitution, 84% were trafficked or under pimp control (Farley et al., 2014).”