To those who consider prostitution rape...

Are you thinking of blue is the warmest colour? It's an awful film

Although, I am considering a thesis now on how football hooliganism and male violence would be solved if the two warring parties could be persuaded to just shag each other....

@Newbutoldfather Ok, but Bonobo's are very very different to chimps still. The males behaviour in particular is completely different. And I would argue both are very different to humans. If we were Bonobo's we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place since we would all be totes sex positive but also peaceful and altruistic to all. A liberal feminist utopia. If we were chimps then the most extreme radical feminists would be right and all men really would be rapists. I do not like this picking and choosing of evolutionary biology/other species behaviour to suit arguments that goes on.

@biscuitandcake ,

I did find the same article I think, and it was sickening, people can be very depraved.

@biscuitandcake ,

This is a slightly more academic link, albeit also not chimps but bonobos. It does show the idea of exchanging sex for other desirable commodities goes back to even before human times.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98894-w

Not to be pedantic but they were capuchin monkeys not chimps. (hashtag notallprimates). I don't think an Orangutan would ever do such a thing (though sadly they are victims of humans sex trafficking them sometimes but I'm not going to link the article because I have had enough of human depravity for one day and its too sad :( )

@CassieMaddox ,

They didn’t teach them how to behave, just wanted to see if they would use a unit of exchange rather than barter.

What they did with the tokens was entirely up to them.

Sorry that was snarky of me. That's actually quite an interesting article

Oh great. Humans corrupting chimps with their morals, ethical.

I've taught my dog to stand on his hind legs for a treat. That doesn't make dogs bipedal.

@CassieMaddox ,

‘Chimps aren't humans and don't use prostitutes so chimp sexuality is irrelevant.’

There is a fair bit of evidence that they do.

https://animalscene.mb.com.ph/scientists-taught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-then-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/

It isn’t irrelevant anyway. Why would it be?

I'm an evolutionary biologist by training. So nice try but no "agenda" here just an opiniom. Chimps aren't humans and don't use prostitutes so chimp sexuality is irrelevant. Most young men aren't sexually incontinent and the ones that are, are a problem for society, not something we should just live with.

All paid sex is coercion. Exchanging money for sex with someone who wouldn't touch you with a bargepole is gross and disrespectful of consent. Very very few women do it (as shown by the complete absence of "massage parlours" for women in the UK). Sexual incontinence is a male problem.

The Gambia thing is coercive and gross by the way. It actually isn't the worst thing that goes on in the Gambia by a long shot I’ve seen UK paedos preying on Gambian children and it’s Britain’s fault, says UN official – The Sun | The Sun

You could say its proof that men are always worse than women if we want to be stupid about this. or we could take it as an example that beneath a well-publicised, form of sexual transaction (that while seedy is seen as comparatively less harmful) a much darker, evil trade is happening. And that maybe the less harmful face of this is helping to distract attention from the other. In short - not a great argument for legal prostitution.

I think that you are pushing an agenda not backed up by data. Biology is also important here. We are evolved chimpanzees, and some of us not that evolved! Young men get horny and will hump a sofa if that is all that is available. And then bring alcohol into the equation and it is hardly a logical decision.

This is a different argument but I think once and for all we need to make a decision.
EITHER men, especially young men, are driven by their biology to the point that it often causes great harm. This can't be helped it is the way men are and you should be careful how much you try to change that inherent nature. Instead we need to work around it (women exercise caution, regulate prostitution so they can satisfy their urges etc)

OR the idea that men are inherently dangerous/that masculinity can be toxic is evil feminist propaganda. Its not fair to talk about men's sexuality as if it is somehow destructive or hard to control. Women are just as bad.

What has been playing out since at least the seventies is often really harmful behaviour being handwaved away with a boys will be boys attitude "its just behaviour". But then when the reaction is "well, if its just male nature to be like that then male nature is harmful". The response is "you can't stereotype men" etc, how dare you say we are basically chimps. And rinse and repeat for decades.

We are all products of our biology but basic ethics says that we have a responsibility to control our behaviour where that causes massive harm to other human beings. Most people understand this but have a huge blind spot in this one area.

@Dervel ,

‘Umm I’m not necessarily in the camp that argues prostitution is rape vociferously I do believe it’s overwhelmingly harmful. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly enough to warrant discussion and action. That’s sufficient to either make it illegal or at the very least heavily regulated.’

I actually tend to agree with this, although favour regulation over making it illegal.

‘The logic is clear, if rape is sex engaged in without consent either by force or coercion, any woman, man or child engaging in it because of poverty, addiction an abusive partner or whatever meets the standard. The consent is violated because the choice is taken under threat of dire consequences. There is coercion ergo there is rape.’

This is where I disagree. We have to be careful about what coercion means. It means an imminent threat of violence or something that causes genuine fear. So people trafficking and pimps coerce prostitutes. Poverty is completely different. Otherwise, you could argue that working for Amazon is coerced labour; no one would choose to work under those conditions unless they chose to.

@CassieMaddox ,

I think that you are pushing an agenda not backed up by data. Biology is also important here. We are evolved chimpanzees, and some of us not that evolved! Young men get horny and will hump a sofa if that is all that is available. And then bring alcohol into the equation and it is hardly a logical decision.

Are drunken women on hen dos who give BJs to strippers, or middle aged women who go to Gambia coercive?

We can agree that the sex trade is worrying and needs to be regulated because of the strong possibility of actual coercion, but the idea of all paid sex being coercion is way too simplistic.

I personally get frustrated that the debate is always about whether prostitutes consent.
I'd rather talk about whether the users understand consent and what that says about their attitudes to women. Anyone who can get aroused by having sex with a woman who doesn't want it and is doing it for cash is in my opinion demonstrating an entitled view about sex and a laxity about consent. I'd expect that kind of man to be sexually coercive or even a rapist in other settings as well.
Legitimising prostitution feeds into and legitimises those entitled coercive views and therefore its not something I as a feminist can support.

Yep. Keith Vaz is standing for election as an independent in Leicester.
Appears to be blaming his use of sex workers on his MH

Umm I’m not necessarily in the camp that argues prostitution is rape vociferously I do believe it’s overwhelmingly harmful. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly enough to warrant discussion and action. That’s sufficient to either make it illegal or at the very least heavily regulated.

However to your statement prostitution is rape has no logic to it baffles me. The logic is clear, if rape is sex engaged in without consent either by force or coercion, any woman, man or child engaging in it because of poverty, addiction an abusive partner or whatever meets the standard. The consent is violated because the choice is taken under threat of dire consequences. There is coercion ergo there is rape.

Where I think the debate is getting bogged down is who are we holding responsible? The individual having sex with the prostitute is certainly a popular person to finger point towards. Although I’m not sure that is good enough in and of itself. Any individual using prostitutes isn’t by themselves singularly responsible for any individual prostitutes economic. I.E. they are not the source of the coercion but they are certainly exploiting it.

What I’m left with and this is an unsettling conclusion is that I myself am responsible for the coercion. Now again not individually or exclusively, but I’m an adult in a democratic society and I vote in a society that has allowed such economic privation to exist as to make sex work the rational action for many operating prostitutes. Note I’m not infantilising them I’m taking taking ownership for my part incrementally small as it may be in this whole sordid business.

I get why it’s attractive to promote the notion consent can be purchased, because it lets me off the hook. Places the entire moral responsibility squarely on the shoulders on the person with the LEAST agency and the most likely to come to harm. We can then collectively wash our hands of it all and move on. I’m not however entirely convinced that we should…

@VoodooQualities I would suspect very few people on here would think all sex was rape. it was always quite a fringe position. Actually I don't think Andrea Dworkin even thought all sex was rape really. She was arguing something slightly different. But that's by the by...

Its a fact that lots of prostitutes have experienced rape as a result of their extremely hazardous lifestyles. That would rather imply that there is a difference between the "normal" encounters(where men pay money to have sex with women who don't want to have sex with them) and those violent ones. So probably it is helpful to keep a distinction so its still possible for the women and others to talk about being raped on the job. So I do agree with you - expanding the definition to far risks lessening its impact. But then, having sex with someone you know for a fact doesn't want to have sex with you certainly sounds like rape. Or rape adjacent.

And as far as people's right to choose goes.... Do I have the right to buy a kidney or liver on the open market if my own are dodgy/failing. Do other people have the right to sell their organs on the open market - their body, their choice and it could be lifting a family out of poverty. (Organs sell for absolutely loads.) Do I have the "right" to pay a homeless man a tenner to pour hot coffee over himself for my own amusement. Its his choice, and its patronising to imply we know best for him which is what we are implying if we say its immoral for me to do that. If the free choice argument doesn't hold for that, why does it hold for prostitution?

That Sonia Sodha article, well worth reading or rereading btw, has a link to the Invisible Man project, about men who used women in prostitution

https://prostitutionresearch.com/the-invisible-men-project/

I've haven't time to look at it just now.

As an aside, the article mentions Keith Vaz, I'm sure I saw something the other day about him being politically rehabilitated!

Isn't using the phrase de haut en bas, technically de haut en bas though? Its a conundrum.

This de haut en bas infantilising position has no logical basis.

Anyone can consent to whatever they want, as long as they are not coerced, and money is not coercion.

No one can dictate the level of enthusiasm you need to have in order to have sex. Rape is sex without consent (or in law, the man needs to believe that you didn’t consent).

Where do people stand on things like Only Fans? Is physical sex the only limit or any use of body to make money?

Makes somber reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/21/selling-sex-is-highly-dangerous-treating-it-like-a-regular-job-only-makes-it-worse

If we’re even making comparisons between prostitution and war, SURELY that’s telling us all something about it?

If we’re going to go there though at least in war we have ceasefires and peace. Where is the ceasefire and peacetime for women?

I don't think it's helpful to call prostitution rape. We should pick our words carefully and ensure that all types of male sexual predation / dominance / misbehaviour are correctly described and categorised.

Personally, I do tend towards believing that consent can be bought or bartered. So consensual and therefore (in my view) morally acceptable prostitution could theoretically be possible. But the reality of the situation is very different from that theoretical basis, and so on balance the right approach must always be to help women get out of it, and encourage men to stop it.

As an aside, I've also never agreed with the hardcore feminists 'all sex is rape' argument (I mean I follow the logic, I just think it's counterproductive and will make most normal people roll their eyes and see feminism as crazy).

Perhaps prostituted women should be awarded medals and ranks. Seats in the House of Lords, there can be schools like Sandhurst for them to learn how to sell their bodies and they can earn commissions. Sunak wants to bring back national service in some form. Perhaps instead of going into one branch of the armed forces there could be Government run brothels as an alternative 🤔

Am I being a tad sarky? Yes, yes I am.