To those who consider prostitution rape...

"I wank, therefore I am"

Also I ducked out of this thread a while back but what the hell does declining testosterone have to do with prostitution? Are prostitutes needed to boost men's testosterone levels up? Do men that use prostitutes have higher levels of testosterone (I suspect if there is a correlation it would be a negative one, manly men don't usually have to pay for sex).

There's philosophy used as a tool to work through complex ethical problems. And then there's picking and choosing random quotes from different philosophers and throwing the names of fallacies around for the sake of "winning" an argument. Like a particularly annoying sixth former. If you want to set out your own thought processes around utilitarianism, the ethical complexities around prostitution etc then that's one thing. But its just "Haha, X says Y, Look at this person's quote" with no actual analysis or context. That's sometimes called sophistry (although actually probably that's unfair on the original Sophists).

Sorry, my last post was meant to say "quoted on Wikipedia." Missed the edit deadline.

"In the UK, up to 64% of female sex workers report violence at work, up to 46% report anxiety or depression and up to 30% currently inject drugs. Among sex workers attending genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics, prevalence of chlamydia, gonorrhoea and HIV is 10%, 3% and 0.2%, respectively, for women and 25%, 17% and 4% for men."

{snip}

"women who sell sex are 12 times more likely to be murdered than women their age, and male and female sex workers have 1-3 times higher odds of chlamydia and gonorrhoea compared with other GUM clinic attendees."

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/105908/html/

Elon666 may be able to find someone quoted Wikipedia who objects to this, so I leave this here with great trepidation, fearing another devastating refutation.

It's hard to believe how easily you seem to miss a point. I don't think you do, actually. I think you pretend to because you have no response to the point.

It's nitpicking to find facile excuses to dismiss anything that does not support your own prejudices, while simply ignoring that which you can find no excuse to dismiss.

I have never mentioned the Nordic model, btw. Who are you talking to here? Are you mistaking me for somebody else?

Your ironclad proof of your claim about Melissa Farley was a single opinion you found quoted on Wikipedia. 🙄
If you're going to be slippery, you'll have to try harder.

Meanwhile you ignored most of what I linked to because you couldn't find a way to dismiss it. This is the essence of disingenuousness in discussion. If somebody offers you evidence, the substance of which you can't refute, just concede the point and move on.

I quote this all the time. So true!

Prostitution is rape.

Female porn actresses can't commit rape because rape requires a penis. The men are perhaps also victims of sexual exploitation - by the industry rather than the woman they're acting with.

Actresses are just acting. They consent to being in the roles and to portray a character.

This thread concerns the "right" of one person, usually, but not always a man, to hire another person, usually, but not always, a woman, to masturbate into or over.

Oh bleurgh, but we'll put.

As Sir Pterry said ‘evil begins when you begin to treat people as things’

He knew what he was talking about, that man

Selling holes in your body to someone for masturbatory functions cannot - and should not - be normalised like any other business. No other job asks people to do this.
NB I also think surrogacy should be made illegal - there is no right to have a child - along with pornography (use your imagination not someone else's body).

Are you hard of reading? I can't be bothered to repeat myself. Read it again.

Also, some of us studied philosophy. We're very used to PoMo men using it to justify their wank fantasies. I lived with several of them for a couple of years. The tiresome arguments to justify their shit were boring then. It's like toddlers tantrumming:

Intimidate
Shame
Use religion or some other spurious shit
Argue
Appeal to authority
Move goalposts
Scream and scream until they're sick.

At the end of the day, if you want to stick your cock into a human who is only doing it because they need the money, and you know they aren't really willing, you're a rapist.

and this whole thread does not concern heterosexual sex

fuck me, that's a mistake that says a lot about you

this thread concerns the exploitation of some humans for the sexual gratification of other humans

'hilarious'

I forgot about women - again!

chortle, snort, etc

@BernardBlacksMolluscs ,

‘But testosterone is related to sex drive

for men

I mean I know it's easy (for you) to overlook 51% of the population but do try to remember we exist’

Umm, you are increasingly hilarious. This whole thread concern’s heterosexual sex. Without men, that is pretty tricky.

But testosterone is related to sex drive

for men

I mean I know it's easy (for you) to overlook 51% of the population but do try to remember we exist

I find it fascinating that women, in this thread, who I presume have experienced sexual activity as women, have such a different view of prostitution from the men, who have not experienced sexual activity as women. One group are pretty sure that it is indeed harmful, the other, largely, can't see how it could be harmful, as it's a matter of choice and a "service" much like cleaning a toilet.
As an aside I would hope that anyone cleaning lavatories would wear rubber gloves and use cloths, rather than licking the bowl clean!

You've linked two pretty much puff pieces. What relevance they have to prostitution isn't clear.

Why are you so determined to promote punters' rights?

@IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle ,

‘What you said was lower testosterone was resulting in less sex. You have no evidence whatsoever that people are having less sex than in past years. (Unless of course you mean husbands can no longer legally rape their wives) ‘

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48184848#:~:text=British%20people%20are%20having%20less,the%20data%20from%2034%2C000%20people.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/02/less-sex-please-were-millennials-study

Now I have evidenced less testosterone and less sex but, clearly, the link is complex.

But testosterone is related to sex drive (I don’t think that can be disputed), so we have a correlation and we have a plausible mechanism linking them.

Of course pornography, busy lives, internet and smart phones are in the mix too. But testosterone is declining and sex (consensual sex!) is declining.

I see Dr Bessel van der Kolk's no 1 fan boy is back

to address a few of your points in no particular order (which is probably somewhat like the inside of your head)

Is it nitpicking to say that paying for sex is already illegal in Korea?
yes. also irrelevant

How do you think that the Nordic model is going to help there?
in the way it is intended to help. by providing judgement free ways to help women escape from prostitution. have you been paying attention?

I read the article that you linked to and it is Melissa Farley again. Melissa Farley is very biased and her methods are flawed.

oh well if you say so then it must be true. oh, actually it doesn't work like that. got anything that isn't wikipedia to back that up?

<load of post modernist waffle about how exploiting people for sex is fiiiiine and anyway look over there>

I don't know how she came to her conclusions.

well maybe find out before you rely on them hmm?

Sex workers in the UK don't get many STDs.

oh well, in that case exploiting people for sex anywhere in the world is dandy

I am not sure you are making the iron clad case you think you are. Dr Bessel van der Kolk would be very disappointed in you

I am aware of what objectification means, and prostitution and pornography both objectify women. What Nussbaum has to say on the matter is irrelevant here. Dworkin and McKinnon are not philosophers - more social researchers, pehaps - but they hit the nail on the head with objectification - it is treating a person as a thing. Slavery involves objectification in that slaves are 'living tools'. From the pov of prostitution and pornography women are 'living tools' for masturbation by men (who are the only unobjectified people).

Punters who engage in sexual acts, while calling the woman they are engaging in those acts with, "dirty whore" while telling them that they are "just a hole" " I'm doing what daddy did" etc etc are certainly objectifying that woman.

Who decided that only people who call themselves, or others call them, philosophers are in a positron to determine what the objectification of women is?

Women are not a sellable commodity. A woman can provide a service such as massage, and that can become sexual. She's not selling herself, she's selling a service.

You talk about 'objectifying women' but you don't want to understand what the main authorities on this subject have to say about it. You think that you know what it means but you don't. Martha Nussbaum is a recognized authority on the subject of objectification.

MacKinnon and Dworkin on the other hand wouldn't call themselves philosophers.