When we talk about prostitution, we should focus on the buyers

btw it isn't "women for sale". They are selling their services.

No other service provision comes with a substantial risk of pregnancy to the service provider. Any other service provider would be able to use effective protections against bodily fluids to prevent catching STIs. "Selling services" is what I do by going to work, not what a prostituted woman does.

A more accurate analogy would be the punter is renting the woman's body. She gets it back at the end of the punt, but he will have at best incurred wear and (vaginal and anal) tear(s) on her, and at worst caused substantial deliberate damage. Like letting out a flat, the owner still owns the flat but it will always have incurred wear and tear at the end of the lease and, if the owner is unlucky, the renter may have gouged holes in the plasterwork and shat on the carpets.

Of course, the flat analogy breaks down because the prostituted woman can't fix herself by sending the decorators in. Even if she could, she's a person, not property, and deserves more respect than a flat. Which is why no human being should be rentable in this way and we absolutely should be focussing shame and awkward questions on the kind of man who thinks that it's OK to rent a woman's body.

Sorry, clearly going a bit mad. I see it is in the OP. Random mind tangents led me a circular path.

Worth dropping this website here again

dieunsichtbarenmaenner.wordpress.com/menu/

Gathering testimonials from Sex buyers in Germany. After they have used the fully legal esatablishments.

The word freequency section is revealling. Sex work is work, just another paid job, doesn't harm women, nothing to see here.

"I don't think you understand the idea of women not being criminals for offering prostitution."

The very next line after the line you quoted was:

Even if she did get reported, women aren't supposed to be criminals under this model, so what do you do?

So yes, I understand that they aren't supposed to be criminals.

The man would be at risk of prosecution in theory. In practice, how would you stop prostitution without taking steps against the woman or her massage profession? How is it going to work?

If you're a man being prosecuted, well you likely just deny that anything happened other than a massage. Where was the evidence to prosecute in the first place? Unless the man video recorded himself, and the evidence was somehow discovered... (would probably happen sometimes, but rare) or the prostitute decides to give evidence against her customers.... (would that even be enough to prosecute?) in 99.99% of cases there isn't going to be any testimony or usable evidence whatsoever.

Can we rely on men to report her to the police rather than going along with the idea?

I don't think you understand the idea of women not being criminals for offering prostitution.

The man would be at risk of prosecution if he accepted paying for a sex act. He should only be reporting her so she can be offered help to get out of the degrading job.

And again, you have completely missed the point I was making.

Please read the post again if you're interested in it.

'This seems to miss the point I was intending to make. Yes, a woman could indeed complain if she didn't like the request'

Stop asking random women for sex!!!

I mean. Are you serious?

You are strangely focused on massage.

I know women who do massage. Sports massage etc.

They get men asking. That's not a great question when the man is basically naked and on a bed thing and you're alone with him. And you've been touching his body as per your job.

I don't understand this focus. Men ask. Why not? I say. Because it's not pleasant to be asked if you will perform sex acts for money. Whether it's walking down the street, or performing a massage.

Men are not backward on coming forward on this.

With the massage it's all a bit 'while you're down there'. Massage is a skill that takes time to master.

If a man wants a fuck then there are plenty of adverts etc.

Why are you so focussed on this?

If it's not obviously part of the thing then don't fucking ask. Obviously.

Pickette said:

"The lengths you've gone through to ask those as though women don't have autonomy is concerning. "How will they know a massage went below the belt"? You mean, "how would they know a woman was sexually harassed?" Hopefully the answer is she files a report against him to the police."

This seems to miss the point I was intending to make. Yes, a woman could indeed complain if she didn't like the request. But what if she is willing to provide the service? Or what if she is the one suggesting a "happy ending"?

Can we rely on men to report her to the police rather than going along with the idea?

Even if she did get reported, women aren't supposed to be criminals under this model, so what do you do? Stop her working? But then presumably that means criminal punishment if she continues?

It's just hard to see, without criminal punishment of the woman, or taking away the woman's job, how you effectively stop a woman offering an extra service at the end of a massage.

The whataboutery on this thread is getting a bit unreal.

‘A not insignificant number of men get off on sexual domination’ - ‘oh, that’s just BDSM, no biggie!’

Hilarious if it were not so terribly tragic. Maybe it takes a bit of life experience to understand that raw power, getting what you want from someone, especially when that someone doesn’t really want to give it to you, really turns some people on. Makes you feel important, invulnerable, top dog, and it can be about many things, not only sex.

@Zinco

1.) Objectification and exploitation with a whip is still the same objectification and exploitation without a whip.

2.) The lengths you've gone through to ask those as though women don't have autonomy is concerning. "How will they know a massage went below the belt"? You mean, "how would they know a woman was sexually harassed?" Hopefully the answer is she files a report against him to the police.

Why on earth would we strictly regulate masseuses and punish women for the inappropriate actions of men? Massages aren't a sex act. This is nothing but victim blaming, it makes as much sense as proposing to arrest a shop owner for being the victim of a robbery.

It may be the woman giving a massage suggesting a "happy ending" of course.

Either way, it's difficult to gather evidence to prosecute anyone.

On the second point. Men shouldn't be asking for sex acts from women who are giving them a massage. Unless they are very very sure that is on offer.

Being offered cash for sex acts is not pleasant. It's not neutral. It's happened to me when I was young more than once. And I wasn't in a situation alone with a man who was on a bed type thing and naked except for a towel.

I know men are taught don't ask don't get. No harm in asking. That's really not true in every situation though.

For those in favour of the Nordic model, a couple of questions....

(1) What about men that pay to be whipped etc. without sex happening? Many people would still view this as a form of prostitution. Should the men be sent to prison for it? Is it really that bad a job for a woman, if you can earn a lot an hour to dominate a man? Should women be prevented from earning a living this way?

(2) What about massage with possible "happy ending"? That looks like a form of prostitution to me. So criminalize the men. But how do you reliably catch the men offering to pay for an "extra"? Who is going to know if massage extends to the penis or not? So make it illegal for women to make a living by massage? Or they need to be under strict controls and have a licence to massage that can be taken away? But that would then criminalize the woman presumably? How easy is it to control what happens at a massage?

We don't live in New Zealand though.

And their record on sex offences/ offences against women selling sex from certain groups are hardly anything to aspire to.

Here in the UK women and girls are very unlikely to get any kind of action if they report sex offences. Maybe if they are the 'perfect' victim and it's a very violent attack and there are with witnesses but even then no one with sense would put money on it.

Even being dead these days often doesn't seem to gain much interest.

It's all very well talking in hypotheticals. If society was like this that etc. But it's not the real world and your posts seem very naive.

I posted a link above from NZ (which has complete decriminalisation) about a recent case a sex worker successfully sued for sexual harassment.

'They also have the same right as anyone else to make a police report if a client commits a crime against them'

Have you seen the stats about reporting/ prosecuting sex offences in the UK?

Have you no understanding of how the police will still discard complaints from women they don't see as the right sort of victim?

Your posts are incredibly far removed from the real world, they're in an alternate universe.

You're deliberately misunderstanding here arent you.

I'm not talking about BDSM. I'm talking about mainstream men and mainstream practices that have been normalised by porn. I'm talking about how normal standard het porn is about male sexual domination of women. I'm talking about how many men have a resentment of women bubbling under- the women who said no when chatted up, the female boss who gets to tell him what to do, the woman who argued with him in the pub in front of his mates and won... A buried desire to put women in their place, to bring them down a peg or 2, to show them who's boss.

To ignore that isn't part of what, in some/ many encounters, the man is paying for. Is naive tbh.

In the UK brothels are illegal which means sex workers must work by themselves, however it is standard practice for them to have someone either in another room (if it is the sex worker's place) or outside in a car (if it is the client's place) for security if the client becomes dangerous.

They also have the same right as anyone else to make a police report if a client commits a crime against them, and because sex work is currently legal there are communities available for them to share details of unsafe clients with other sex workers to ensure noone else accepts a booking from that individual in the future.

There are ways to deal with dangerous clients and to prevent them from harming any sexworkers in the future, this is something sex workers do not have to deal with.

@MargaritaPie
Quote: "Get off on domination, causing pain, humiliation etc. "

This is called BDSM. There are sex workers who "specialise" in this called mistresses or dominatrixes. Before engaging in any activity it's standard practice for a dom will chat to the client beforehand to discuss what the client wants out of the booking to determine if it's something she can provide and to discuss rules about safety etc.

I don’t think that it is the women providing the domination that are meant. It is the women on the receiving end that are meant. Those women probably won’t have been able to discuss rules and safety and even if they have done so there is no guarantee that the men involved will stick to that.

Quote: "Women driven to sex work (prostitution) due to UC"

I agree, poverty and faulty benefits systems like UC can be a contributing factor for causing some to enter the sex industry who may not have done so otherwise. In this case it is better to tackle the issue of poverty as it's obviously much better to tackle the cause.

Quote: "Get off on domination, causing pain, humiliation etc. "

This is called BDSM. There are sex workers who "specialise" in this called mistresses or dominatrixes. Before engaging in any activity it's standard practice for a dom will chat to the client beforehand to discuss what the client wants out of the booking to determine if it's something she can provide and to discuss rules about safety etc.

Re the British law on BDSM porn it's illegal if it depicts something that could put someone's life in danger (this includes choking), porn depicting rape and rape "roleplays" are illegal and any porn involving animals or dead people (again including people pretending to be dead) are illegal.

I agree with everything you say @FlyingOink

The dodgy men are always there. The women are still hurt. Just proportionately less. The fact that basic stats fact is too much to grasp is peculiar to me.

Completely.

btw it isn't "women for sale". They are selling their services.

This is the romanticised gloss.

In many many cases it's not them. They're owned.

By pimps, traffickers, by drugs. They're owned by the punters; no punters no 'profession.'

Again, iceberg. Top visible glossy, sexy bit. Much larger, darker cold bit beneath the surface.

I suppose it's a basic difference of opinion.

If it's a job like any other then market forces are normal, increasing demand is good.

For those who see it in a different light. Who essentially think that it's not good for society, women, girls, or in fact men. To see purchasing a woman to fuck as normal. Increasing demand, normalising, framing it as just another job of you're desperate. Is a disaster.

I don't think these views are ever going to meet in the middle.

For me at least. My view comes from a variety of areas. Knowing what men can be like. My friend having sex with 2 men at 15 for some drugs. My having been asked when I was young and knowing if I was just in a bit less of a good place I'd think why not. Knowing how entitled and pushy men are with sex when they aren't paying. When they are paying. Doesn't bear thinking about. The knowledge that many men always have. And with the porn available now even more. Get off on domination, causing pain, humiliation etc. It's just a toxic mix.

It's not a trade that is ok in society. It's just not.

So really nothing is going to change my mind on that.

The argument that reducing demand just leaves the dodgy men and so women are more at risk is so hopeless I don't know where to put it. The dodgy men are always there. The women are still hurt. Just proportionately less. The fact that basic stats fact is too much to grasp is peculiar to me.