To those who consider prostitution rape...

@CassieMaddox ,

I don’t think you can say we should focus on the ‘punters’.

The Nordic model is very appealing to some feminists, those who like the hierarchy of victimhood. It is less appealing to those who take a stronger line on autonomy.

On a more practical basis, there is a lot of debate on whether it has actually made ‘working girls’ safer or the reverse.

@CassieMaddox ,

I don’t think that is right. I think you can consent to minor but not major injury, as I stated.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/feb/17/landmarks-in-law-when-five-men-were-jailed-for-consensual-sex

But we draw the line quite far in other areas, so consensual ‘mild’ S&M is still legal.
That's also not true. One can't consent to being assaulted. The reality is consensual S&M is illegal but never gets reported as a crime.

Womens bodies are not like drugs or alcohol.
Selling online sex is virtual prostitution in my eyes - not as physically harmful to the woman but mentally still damaging. And the punters (who should be the focus here) are still demonstrating their entitlement to sex and lack of regard to the woman involved and her feelings.

We also haven't even touched on the issue of the harms to relationships and families of men paying for sex. It is the cause of relationship break ups and trauma for partners and children who have done nothing.

I want the Nordic model. I want punters to be made aware in no uncertain terms that their feelings of entitlement to sex and the resulting harms to women are not socially acceptable.

You brought it up. In the post chrome was replying to.
Bodily autonomy is not "an illusion". It's a right that some people don't currently have.

@SirVixofVixHall ,

I do see prostitution as analogical to drugs or alcohol. In addition, you have to define prostitution carefully. Is selling online ‘sex’ prostitution or something completely different?

When you look at the way the market is structured (even for alcohol at the bottom end), the criminal involvement and the abuse, they are very similar.

But that does not mean that all drug transactions are criminal (in jurisdictions where they are legal) or that all users are abusive.

The crux of the matter is whether sold sex is per se harmful to the seller and, if so, to what extent. It is true you cannot consent to serious assault, which rules out organ selling. There was a famous case about this and sadomasochistic sex. But we draw the line quite far in other areas, so consensual ‘mild’ S&M is still legal. And where does a 20 year old marrying an 80 year old multimillionaire stand here? It would be hard to argue there wasn’t at least something transactional about the relationship. Law always trades off autonomy vs protection (of the self and broader society).

So I don’t think any civilised person could defend the type of prostitution you have seen, but should that mean all prostitution is rape, or should it be carefully regulated?

This.
I lived in a red light district for a number of years. I saw drug addicted, emaciated women in situations with men that were horrible to witness. The imbalance of power, both financial and physical was totally obvious, as was the sexual violence. I have also seen women running away from men who became even more violent, one who had a machete, for instance. If you have ever lived in a place where you see scenes like this, you are certainly in no doubt about “consent” and how that plays out in life.

Looks like it, though I am not 'anti-choice', in that, though I don't like e.g. abortion, I am not stopping anyone else having an abortion if that is their life choice, nor saying women should die because it is wrong to abort a dead baby, end an ectopic pregancy, refused life-saving treatment to the mother, etc. (stupid idea!), nor supporting or lauding those who campaign against abortion. But choice is an illusion. We do not have bodily autonomy in the way that is being put forward here.
The idea being put forward that abortion up to term is a right women should have is not in line with current thinking among UK women afaik - as the move is more to reduce the gestation time to 22 weeks in elective abortions (i.e. those not carried out for a medical reason). Obv there are circumstances where a pregnancy has to be ended because of illness, death of child in utero, etc, or because needed treatment for the mother will be delayed otherwise. I would not count these as abortion - they are the early birth of a viable child in the case of illness of the mother, with the chance the child will also survive. Removal of a dead child from the mother's body is no more abortion than is the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, or an appendectomy. We already, de facto, have abortion up to term for conditions where it is vital the pregnancy be ended, in all those cases. No sensible person opposes ending a pregnancy in such circumstances.
But bodily autonomy is an illusion and pretending it isn't can cause endless harm e.g. playing into the idea that prostituting women is their choice.
Since you brought up abortion I will point out that allowing elective abortion to birth puts women in danger of being coerced e.g. because the child is female - elective abortions among some communities are just for this reason, which I would think anyone supporting women's rights on a feminist chat board would oppose. There is little bodily autonomy for a woman in those circumstances, esp bearing in mind her culture tells her that girl babies are unwelcome and she should do her best not to produce a daughter (with all the repercussions of imbalanced sex ratios as currently the case in India and China, which situation has not improved the position of women but worsened it). Bear in mind it is women who support FGM in societies that practice it because their culture indoctrinates them into believing female genitalia are unclean, with the added nastiness that it prevents rape, which leaves a picture of a society so misogynistic it has no value, at least in my eyes. (Maybe cut off little boys' penises? This would also prevent at least some sorts of rape - don't see any society going for that one!)
As to prostitution, many women are trafficked, others have no other means of support. They are not making an informed choice and selling the holes in your body for someone to use is not a job like any other. Ditto pornography. Regulation on the Nordic model would lessen the risk for women who are being prostituted, and brakes on the material the porn industry can put out (censorship, those in that 'industry' have protested) is a viable and necessary act in a civilised society where women are respected. That would be a move towards bodily autonomy, I think.

@TempestTost (and @Defenestre who also made the same point) what other situations are you thinking of?
The only situations I can think of where proceeding without consent is a crime are healthcare (where consent must be informed) and sexual assault.
Or are you talking about ethics rather than legalities?

It's not about taking away the right to consent, but taking away the privilege of exploiting others who aren't in a position to give free, informed consent.

Well, that's part of why the world is so fucked up, isn't it. Too many people don't care if they're taking advantage of others.

That is actually a great point. For example, in what other job would it be considered normal for customers to just ignore that you were clearly off your head on drugs to take advantage of your situation? Prostitutes use drugs a lot. The johns don't care if they're too impaired to consent.

Are you seriously writing an anti-choice screed on a feminist chat?

For example - you would end up removing a lot of adult's rights to consent in many situations, because it's not totally "freely" given - whatever that means I daresay truly free decisions are the exception not the rule.

If you take your principle and apply it to the rest of life you will have an entirely untenable situation.

Especially the male performers but then the job is less risky for them.

I would think that sex work ending up being rape for most women, the same would apply to the few male prostitutes and the male porn performers too- that is ends up being forced sex or rape for them too.

Its cos its women innit?
The second class citizens.
No one cares what happens to women.

Melanie Phillips (yes I know, she's often batshit crazy) made the point on a Radio 4 Moral Maze debate at the time of the ending of the Formula One girls and general sexual objectification of women.

One of the witnesses was a stripper who was very much against the ban. Stripping empowered her. Melanie Phillips' take was that it isn't empowering. It's completely the opposite. The woman is being paid to degrade and humiliate herself. The only element of "empowerment" is giving a bloke an erection.

Yes.
Although it's not really about the woman's rights is it?
Its about the rights of some men to indulge their kinks for getting aroused by degradation and harm caused to women.

Just going back to my previous, rather facetious, post up thread. I believe Germany has or is considering bringing back some form of national service. It also has legal brothels. What would be the problem with their youth being offered a place in brothel instead of the army?

There are plenty of circumstances where rape has been committed "even if the woman doesn't think so".

Examples would be in marriage, when asleep, when the man ejaculates inside without consent, when the girl is underage. We all call these rape.

I agree that buying sex is rape. Would YOU be happy to be bought for the sole purpose of being a hole for a man to use for his gratification and not yours? Because that is what prostitution is. You take a woman, you reduce her to a thing with a hole.

There's a reason why society hates prostitutes and not the buyers. Prostitutes have to be dehumanised and it makes us all look down on women who reduce themselves to holes. It dehumanises all women to some extent. That any woman, desperate enough, would accept this.

This is my critical thinking, not my own personal view. I'm talking about generally.

...current Labour party policy...[is]... abortion up to the point of birth....

Really? I missed this. That doesn't sound like a vote winner!

The OP’s use of ‘porn star’ is interesting: most on camera in porn industries are not ‘stars’ or well paid.

I think the whole idea of bodily autonomy is full of difficulties. We do not have bodily autonomy. We cannot decide a great many things about our body and the idea that we can leads to all sorts of strange ideas, such as (current Labour party policy) abortion up to the point of birth. Ummm - that sounds like infanticide. We also do not have bodily autonomy when we become ill. We may be able to choose what treatments to accept but that's not a real choice, nor informed consent unless you are a specialist in your own illness. It seems to me that bodily autonomy is a way for people to become irresponsible.

'My body, my choice' is the most amoral statement. It's saying that a person wants to be selfish and has a perfect right to be so in all circumstances. What about the other people around you? Do they not have rights? If what you choose to do harms them do you have the right to do it? I think there are circumstances where the answer to that question is that you do not have the right to act as you want because of the consequences to others.

But a lot defend the right of a woman to be humiliated for money. And hurt.