To those who consider prostitution rape...

Very few women buy sex from women/men.

Whether these women are rapists depends on whether it is legally rape or forced sex or serious sexual assault as defined the laws of the country the crime is committed in.

England has one of the the most restrictive definition of rape in that it has to be penetration of a flesh and blood male penis into a flesh and blood female vagina, or any sex’ anus or mouth to be rape. (The latter two are very recent additions,- a man legally couldn’t rape another man until 1994). The English law makes it impossible for a woman to ever be convicted of rape.

In England a woman can forcibly penetrate another woman or man’s relevant orifices with a strap on plastic penis and it’s not rape, because it’s not a ‘real penis’. In England, it is legally sexual assault, and the woman is not a rapist. In other countries, that would be legally rape and the woman a rapist.

A woman can force her vagina, anus or mouth on to a man’s penis (there are cases) and in England that’s not rape of the man, it’s sexual assault. In other countries it is legally rape and the woman is a rapist,

So the question are these women rapists too is not a simple question.

I agree. The Nordic model also criminalises pimps/madams, brothels,…so all third parties as well as buyers on the basis that all commercially sold sex is sex slavery.

The goal of the Nordic model is to eventually end the sex industry by outlawing and then eliminating demand for bought sex. This is done while providing free education and training to get women (and the few men) out of prostitution/porn. The final step is full abolishment of prostitution & porn.

Exactly. It's another false comparison, like the cleaner/prostitute comparison. It could be disingenuous, but perhaps it's just not well thought out. At any rate, it's a poor argument.

Not to the same degree. Let's call it rapey or rape adjacent. If there was a huge power discrepancy in women's favour, then yeah, it would be exactly the same. The power differential is in the favour of the prostitute if he is male in every way aside from financial power. I'm assuming a woman buying sex is more prosperous than a male prostitute, though that may not always be the case. The male prostitute who services women is not at nearly the same risk from violence or disease as the female prostitute who services men. It's easier for a woman to get an STD from a man, and obviously a woman is more vulnerable to assault. Female prostitutes are also more likely to be trafficking victims than male prostitutes who service women.
That mitigates the rapiness of it to some extent, but it's still vile.

Agree.

I just had a bit of a penny drop moment reading your post bodega.
Cleaning is a chore. We pay people to do it for us because we are busy or whatever.
Sex isn't or shouldn't be a chore. There is something inherently misogynistic about a narrative that makes out that sex is a chore women do for men, that can be outsourced to someone else. It's got overtones of sex being unpleasant, boring or indifferent for women, so really their partner is doing them a favour by paying a prostitute for the chore. 🤮

I will add as I know from my many years in cleaning.
You can choose only keyholder jobs, so you dont have to meet people, cleaning offices is a piece of piss, there are many many different hours you can choose from, from full time to only every other Sunday. You can still get paid cash in hand in many places and most importantly, you can Jack the job in if you hate it or the people and know inside of a week you'll have another.

Nowt wrong wi cleaning as a job, I'm out of it now but could go back any time.

I’d perhaps go further and say we have more agency in general than what women currently enjoy.

OK.
Can we agree men have much more bodily autonomy than women?

Prostituted women often report symptoms of PTSD, much in line with men who have been in combat zones. Some of them were already suffering from CPTSD, as a result of csa, or other forms of sexual violence prior to their "sex work". The legacy of flashbacks, audio and visual speak volumes, to me, of the harms which prostitution causes.

It's an illusion. Sorry, but it is.

Let's look at a more sanitised version.

Years ago I was tangentially involved with some cam girls . First of all, the websites took a cut , then the "studio" took a cut. A lot of them were young women, some barely 18. The reasons varied, some were in debt, some had chaotic lives/were homeless,one was a struggling single parent, some thought it would be easy money (ha!) , some got "recruited" etc.

There was extreme pressure to make money. A lot of them felt unable to say no to requests in case they lost clients/money. There was pressure to go bigger and bigger(from girl on girl , to masturbating with a whole fruit bowl , to urine or faeces "play")A lot of the requests were degrading, as was the majority of the language used and it did take its toll. If they weren't making enough money there were veiled or outright threats and pressure to buy products to improve "performance " and "productivity " for which they then owed money to the "studio ". Some got threatened if they wanted to branch out on their own. They were supervised by the owners, in case they were on break too long, laughing or messing around ,cam off etc.Manipulation, gaslighting,control.Many , many other things.

So glamorous, so much choice. Still, they were safer and more sheltered in many ways , than prostitutes.

Now extrapolate that to trafficking, to the streets and brothels and the so called "dance clubs".

Rape is a crime that involves penetration with a penis, so no.
Any theoretical woman punter is also assaulting the male prostitute, but I would argue it is more invasive and increases vulnerability to be the person being penetrated than the penetrator, so they are not equivalent.

So I assume you'd be fine if your wife decided she would have sex with her boss for an extra amount in her pay packet
No harm done. Just like any other overtime.

Men sell sex to other men.
Women don't buy sex as a rule. Why would they? They can get it for free, easily.

Why can't we focus on the punters? They are the ones doing the damage. They are the ones using trafficked women/girls to orgasm, they are the ones cheating on their partners, they are the ones who believe their entitlement to sex is more important than anything else. Absolutely they should be the focus. With no demand, there would be no supply.

Anyone who buys other people’s bodies for sex is scum.

Do you seriously think posters here hold female punters in less contempt than they hold male punters?

I'm quite posh. Live in a very posh part of a desirable to live in city. My son was at a private school. I've employed nannies, cleaners and gardeners.

I won't lie, if my son were a cleaner, it wouldn't be my first choice but he'd be in a useful job, doing paid work. I wouldn't be unhappy. I would be unhappy if he were in "sex work"

If he were using prostitutes I'd be so disappointed. I don't think I'd want to see him.

It isn't really possible to legalise prostitution without dropping our universal precautions so low they're at 19th century levels. That would make cleaning a dreadful job, and nursing, if there was no need for employers or contractors to prevent exposure to biohazards.
The only sex act I can think of which meets current standards would be a woman wearing medical grade gloves giving a man a hand job while he wore a condom. So the rest of the sex trade would continue anyway, I think.
In my opinion providing sexual/ised labour should not be illegal, it should be decriminalised. I think the Nordic model is probably best for harm minimisation, so procuring sexual labour from another person should be a crime. But I'm not 100% sure. It's a difficult thing to interpret evidence on.
I went to one of the buildings in Victoria which are called legal brothels but I'm not sure what I'd call them. There were, literally, walls of text exculpating the building owners and proprieters from any kind of responsibility to the women who were inside doing the sex acts in exchange for money. In any way - disease, non-payment, assault. Reams and reams of legalese. There's noone else in the city who would put up with those sorts of working conditions.

Why would you not want your child to be a cleaner? It's a great job. There's always plenty of work, you can have lots of control over your own hours, and there's zero take home stress. Yes, a shit contractor makes the work horrible but no different to the way a shit unit manager makes nursing work horrible. Speaking from my experience.
There are some very posh people on this site. Insights into such a strange, foreign world.

I'm glad somebody pointed out the harms to the families of johns. I know a number of women who experienced this. Some got STDs, cervical cancer from HPV or infertility from PID. All were deeply traumatized, as were their kids.

''It can't be abuse, look how much I'm enjoying myself'.

Menial labourers are not at nearly the risk of violence, disease and drug addiction as prostitutes.
This is a false comparison, which makes it a lame argument.
People don't want their daughters being beaten, raped and killed by johns and pimps a lot more than they don't want them getting blisters from menial labour.

It seems you may have some false ideas about what life as a prostitute is actually like.

If a man is paid to have sex with a woman, he does not have to be concerned about what happens if she turns violent, on the whole. He is unlikely to be overpowered, to be analy penetrated against his will, choked and have other women waiting round the corner to "have their turn", without his consent. To bring male prostitutes into the discussion feels disingenuous to me.