To those who consider prostitution rape...

The evidence for CPTSD is not looked for, sadly. Very little good quality research has been done. Within mainstream psychiatry/psychology, the question is rarely asked and the women are unlikely to volunteer the information, given the stigma of prostitution and the erroneous belief that it is usually a choice. For any other research funds are needed and the people who are most likely to use prostituted women, tend to be those who ultimately control the funding.
Anecdotally, which I am aware some people feel is unworthy of repeating, the experiences of prostituted women do lead to CPTSD, the behaviours of the punters and pimps being such that it becomes almost inevitable.

If you want to make mumsnet a philosophy free zone that's fine by me. But don't start talking about morals/ethics because you can't get anywhere sensible without involving philosophy.

Decriminalisation makes it safer for people. It could be made no different to any other forms of business - with age guidelines, health and safety rules and zoning areas."

I think health and safety has already done addressed.

@MrsTerryPratchett

"It's work like any other job. Except no other job requires you to insert biohazard into your body, without effective PPE. In any Health and Safety work you learn to look at how to prevent harm. If a task is inherently dangerous, and this is, before you consider PPE or other protections, you first consider stopping the task altogether. Only essential tasks, that require the danger, move on to guards and PPE. There is no other non-essential job like this. And the only reason men want us to believe that it is because they believe sex with unwilling women is essential."

We have got to the stage in the thread where I am going to have to repeat myself. According to people who know like Dr Petra Boynton quoted below nearly all paid-for sex involves condoms. Sex workers in the UK don't get many STDs.

"The recent increase in sexually transmitted infections in the general population in the United Kingdom contrasts with a reduced prevalence in female sex workers. And the prevalence of HIV infection in sex workers, mainly associated with injecting drug use, remains low— between 0% and 3.5%. Sex workers have a responsible approach to managing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, with a high prevalence of condom use for commercial vaginal sex (98%). The Home Office strategy shows inadequate understanding of risk, and the proposed changes could increase negative health outcomes, while limiting patients' access."

Belinda Brooks-Gordon said "Lots of people mistakenly think that drug addicts form the majority of people in the sex industry. They do not. They are only a tiny proportion. And on-street prostitution only accounts for about 10 to 15 per cent of all prostitution. Decriminalisation makes it safer for people. It could be made no different to any other forms of business - with age guidelines, health and safety rules and zoning areas."

I don't know how she came to her conclusions. This will be the best estimate according to the information at the time. As for the PTSD, I have seen no evidence that it is common except with drug addicts.

Ah, a good old fashioned attack on the source.

Most of the academics who are against the Nordic model and pro decriminalization are women. Professor Belinda Brooks-Gordon, Dr Petra Boynton, Professor Teela Sanders, Emily Kenway, Professor Amia Srinivasan, Juno Mac and Molly Smith.

@XChrome

Give the nitpicking a rest, dude.

Is it nitpicking to say that paying for sex is already illegal in Korea? How do you think that the Nordic model is going to help there? It sounds as if criminalizing clients is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Even if in Korea it was legal to pay for sex then they had the Nordic model, we know that the Nordic model doesn't work. We know that in surveys more women in Sweden today say that they have been paid for sex than before the Nordic model - 1.5% compared to 0.3%. We know that in Northern Ireland the amount of prostitution has increased.

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

Interesting position. You suggest that declining violence in Western men is a bad thing. You may be right if you are thinking of the sort of violence we use to protect our societies from others who might destroy it. I see in a foggy way what you are getting at. Non-Western societies are not less violent and are often much more violent towards women (though we are not supposed to notice this as all cultures are equally worthy). If the ability of Western men to project violence or aggression towards those who attack their values diminishes then Western values (which support women better than non-Western values) will be destroyed. So, yes, the decrease in violence exemplified by outward aggression against encroaching cultures/ideas that undermine Western philosophy, enlightenment, and reason is a loss. What we do about it whilst preventing as much as we can violence against women and girls is a difficult circle to square. However, a visit to Durham cathedral and a careful look at the Norman pillars will show you exactly how you square a circle - in other words, it can be done. We can protect Western values (which are by and large supportive of ordinary men and women and their ability to live their lives with freedom and also accomplishment) whilst lowering aggression in Western societies towards women. We know that rape, prostitution, pornography and violence towards women are not civilized and that it is Western civilization that has made these things clear and (sometimes) attempted to eradicate them, so we need to support our civilization - aggressively if necessary. A bit less de-colonization, and a bit more realisation that not every culture on the planet is worthy of continuance and that Western values are not the pits.

It's also a good thing, on a dying planet. We certainly don't need millions more carbon consumers to accelerate the death.

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)

In any case "Low testosterone levels can decrease sperm count and quality, which can lead to infertility. Low testosterone can also affect other aspects of fertility, such as sex drive and erectile dysfunction. However, the testes produce much higher levels of testosterone than the blood, so even men with low testosterone levels may still have enough for sperm production"

https://lomalindafertility.com/infertility/men/low-testosterone/#:~:text=Low%20testosterone's%20effect%20on%20male,in%20decreased%20production%20of%20sperm.

The level of "adjustments" made by women and girls is largely invisible, often to themselves, certainly to men. Very few lone women will walk through a known "red light" district, at any time of day, for fear of being propositioned and no not being taken for an answer. Women cover their drinks in pubs and clubs (I'm certainly not aware of straight men having to do that). The constant awareness of risk is there, and it's assessment is second nature. The reclaim the night marches in the 80's had this at their heart. Women were being informally curfewed, and they still are!

‘The declining birth rate is due to economic and social factors - not lower testosterone.’

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is-causing-a-male-fertility-crisis

Lower testosterone is probably a factor.

Nope, I said testosterone. Yes, makes less violence, but also less sex drive and, indirectly, a lower birth rate

The declining birth rate is due to economic and social factors - not lower testosterone.

You do not understand the cultural sea you swim in, you have demonstrated that on this thread. You take things that seem true for you and assume they are true for everyone else, without considering the differences between you and those people.

there are women (and a man) on this thread who have attempted to explain to you why your experiences don’t extend to every other human in the world but you seem to be unable to take on this information

when dealing in person with someone who had demonstrated the level of empathy you have would I do a risk assessment based on his size and mood? You bet I would

@BernardBlacksMolluscs ,

‘awww, was I inadequately fawning? diddums. you see, we're not in the same room so you can't use your greater size and strength to intimidate me. sad times (for you)’

Do you really look at someone’s size and strength before making an argument? I have no desire to intimidate anyone. Why would I? I just disagree with you, I know a hard concept for people who like echo chambers.

‘if you meant testosterone declining and not male violence you may wish to consider being a little less ham fisted in your phrasing and then people would have a clearer view of what you're going on about’

My phrasing was 100% clear to anyone reading objectively. It refers to the subject of the previous sentence, it is how grammar works 99% of the time. But, of course, you weren’t reading objectively….

awww, was I inadequately fawning? diddums. you see, we're not in the same room so you can't use your greater size and strength to intimidate me. sad times (for you)

This may come as news to you, but we're talking about women here. There are doubtless things that men do to keep themselves safe from other men. I advise my sons to take such measures.

but we were talking about the things women do to keep themselves safe from men. you see (you may wish to sit down at this point) not everything is about men

if you meant testosterone declining and not male violence you may wish to consider being a little less ham fisted in your phrasing and then people would have a clearer view of what you're going on about

@BernardBlacksMolluscs

‘and you have no fucking clue what the women in your life do to keep themselves safe from men. you have demonstrated yourself to be insensitive, tone deaf and not particularly smart. they're not going to tell you and you're never going to work it out for yourself.’

And you have, in your own delightful words, what the men in your life do to keep themselves safe, so you have no comparator!

‘your post says that you see the decline of male violence in western populations as a bad thing. That's erm....an interesting take. ‘

Nope, I said testosterone. Yes, makes less violence, but also less sex drive and, indirectly, a lower birth rate. Pluses and minuses…

oh mate

where to even start

your post says that you see the decline of male violence in western populations as a bad thing. That's erm....an interesting take.

and you have no fucking clue what the women in your life do to keep themselves safe from men. you have demonstrated yourself to be insensitive, tone deaf and not particularly smart. they're not going to tell you and you're never going to work it out for yourself.

@Dervel,

Re your widening of the discussion:

‘There is a wider issue of a spectrum of behaviours/attitudes towards women (of which prostitution is included) being viewed as objects and subject to violence that affects all women, and also gets in the way of men forming healthy relationships, which whilst significant isn’t the point of this discussion.’

Objectification is complex. It is an easy ‘gotcha’, but the problem is that all sex is, at least in part, based on objectification, and this applies both ways. People don’t hook up with other people they aren’t attracted to, and there are many threads on here of women who are struggling to have sex with husbands who have put on weight. It is basic biology. So the issue isn’t objectification per se, but whether objectification is fine to relieve a sexual itch but not fine in exchange for money. As to the violence bit, you will never ever eliminate violence in humans, and that includes sexual violence. Men are more often victims (in total, not sexual violence) but, yes, it is perpetrated by men. But that is because men are, on average, bigger and they have testosterone, which they kind of need. It is actually declining significantly in western populations, personally I don’t think that is a good thing, but you may disagree.

‘As long as women are viewed as objects, and subject to violence it practically limits the amount of freedom and liberty most women can experience in any public space. Irrespective of what legal equalities we have achieved, women still have to limit and be wise to when and where they engage in just simply living life. This is untenable, and whilst more and more women navigate this successfully and should be applauded, the fact remains they shouldn’t have to in the first place.’

This will resonate on this board, but I doubt that the majority would agree if you posted it as a proposition in AIBU or did a poll amongst the general populace. It certainly doesn’t resonate with me. The women I know no more circumscribe their lives than I do. People don’t need applause for just living normally!

I wasn't intending to win philosphical arguments. But the existence of prostitution is an evil which impinges on all women. It assumes that 'woman' is a sellable comodity, rather than a person, and that women are 'things'. Once you see that porn, prostitution in its various manifestations is a way of keeping women coralled out of the mainstream world, it shows that a utilitarian way of viewing prostitution is another way of objectifying women.

This! Couldn't agree more.

The passive aggressive "male feminist hero" swipe at you was about envy because you are thoughtful, intelligent, mature and as a result people actually like you. It's just a substitute for calling you a cuck or a simp, which the poster knows would get his post deleted. Don't sweat it.

Don't worry @Dervel we've not giving you medals but we don't think you're a dick. There's a good argument for saying that you can tell the value of a person not only by their friends but in this case, by whose nose you're getting up. You get up the right noses.

And hating women is bad for everyone. You're right about that.

If people don’t be object to me widening the discussion. I believe this is important: Whilst our focus should be on those suffering whilst actively engaging in working as prostitutes. There is a wider issue of a spectrum of behaviours/attitudes towards women (of which prostitution is included) being viewed as objects and subject to violence that affects all women, and also gets in the way of men forming healthy relationships, which whilst significant isn’t the point of this discussion.

As long as women are viewed as objects, and subject to violence it practically limits the amount of freedom and liberty most women can experience in any public space. Irrespective of what legal equalities we have achieved, women still have to limit and be wise to when and where they engage in just simply living life. This is untenable, and whilst more and more women navigate this successfully and should be applauded, the fact remains they shouldn’t have to in the first place.

Things like prostitution being this inherently unsolvable problem is but one of many levers we use to keep women away from self actualised agency. Domestic violence and public harassment being other examples. When we argue in favour of things like men’s inherent right to buy sex on grounds of liberty, we are by definition accepting an intolerable infringement on women’s ability to simply exist in the world. This cannot be allowed to stand.

I reject being cast as some sort of male feminist hero simply for having some sort of basic desire to live collaboratively with one half of our species. I don’t particularly seek to identify as either feminist or even an ally. I am just a fellow traveller that would rather live in a healthier world. I don’t think at the end of the day my position is anything but a very basic, and incredibly low bar. It shouldn’t even be particularly noteworthy. I would personally prefer if it wasn’t.

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand 2

Ayn Rand herself had this to say about promiscuity. Her followers seem to condense her views down to "prostitution is immoral but should not be illegal"

(I can't believe I've just spent a good 20 minutes trawling through this stuff)

Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important . . .

@Grammarnut If we wanted to wank on about philosophy, you could argue talking about prostitution was the fastest way to expose the flaws in utilitarianism. But winning imaginary philosophical debates on the internet doesn't mean anything anyway.