Is porn rape?

A prostituted woman is paid to 'allow' a man/men to rape her. Prostitution is paid for rape. Pornography is degradation of women. The women who take part are often damaged, in abusive relationships, sexually abused as children, prostituted. Certainly, pornography is rape and men who watch it are watching rape - and some pornography is actual rape. All should be banned for it is wrecking lives and perverting sexuality so that kinks such as BDSM, anal sex, strangling etc are normalised as what a woman can expect from sex. It feeds into the trans cult as well, and the abuse of under age children and the abuse of women domestically. It also feeds into VAWG and sexual assault and rape in our homes and our streets from men who think they are entitled to sex and that women who won't give it deserve to have it taken by force.
'Choosing' to be a prostitute is no choice if you are poor, trafficked, an immigrant, have few skills. Such a 'choice' is not empowering but degrading and most prostituted women want to get out of being prostituted. Most make very little money, are drug-addicted and abused. And pornography feeds into this along with its message that men are entitled to sex.

You're absolutely right. I'm just another one of those "crazies"... the support work I used to do with women in the sex trade around sex trafficking is completely irrelevant. Especially compared to your enlightened understanding through having a prostitute "friend" (That's sarcasm by the way).

However much the chronically online wish to dismiss Mumsnetters as nowt more than middle class fish wives, there's a wealth of knowledge and experience from women in these subs and sometimes a stance comes from a (cue gasp sound) informed position.

This tell me you believe consent can be bought.
There is a grey area in which remuneration frequently coexists with coercion and restriction of choice.

Some people think:

1: porn is prostitution

and

2: prostitution is rape

Putting these two together, porn is rape.

Is that reasonable, and do you agree with it?

I'm not talking about legal definitions, of course; though if it's true, then surely porn should be illegal.

We know the proportion of sex workers who are trafficked. Several researchers have independently come up with the figure of around 15%. Trafficked doesn't mean coerced. Some trafficked women will have been coerced but most won't. If you have worked with trafficked and/or coerced women then you are likely to think that all sex workers are like those women.

Some people believe that 60% of sex workers are enslaved. There is only one 'researcher' who says that though. Melissa Farley in America. All the other researchers come up with a figure of around 15% for trafficked women although one respected researcher - Niina Vuolajärvi - puts it at 6%.

So Missey85 was quite right to say that it doesn't happen as often as some people like to believe.

Except that's not what she said. And I don't care for your "er actually" response either.

It was your response to Missey85 that was the "er actually" response. You were very condescending to Missey85. She wrote "I know people on here love to bang on about sex trafficking sure it happens but not as as often as the crazies on here think it does". Your response was a sarcastic "I'm just another one of those crazies" and then claiming you have superior knowledge although just working with 'women in the sex trade around sex trafficking' isn't going to tell you what proportion of sex workers are trafficked or coerced.

I don't like the way you imply that Mumsnetters are going to agree with you about the proportion of sex workers who are trafficked. If your 'wealth of knowledge' and 'imformed position' means that you believe that 60% of prostitutes are enslaved - something I have read on Mumsnet - then you are believing something totally false.

Researchers have put the figure for sex workers who are trafficked at around 15% - and trafficked does not mean enslaved.

So as porn is obviously prostitution, and therefore consumers of porn are incentivising rape, shouldn't watching porn be criminalised, with severe punishments for those found guilty of it?

Some people think:

1: porn is prostitution

and

2: prostitution is rape

Putting these two together, porn is rape.

Is that reasonable, and do you agree with it?

I'm not talking about legal definitions, of course; though if it's true, then surely porn should be illegal.

I understand the difference between reported cases of trafficking and the difficulty in proving trafficked cases to have them reported as such.

I understand that identitying trafficked cases from EU states when freedom of movement was a thing made the job 1000x harder.

I understand that trafficked doesn't always mean people brought in from other countries, and that sex trafficking also goes hand in hand with alot of county lines crime.

I have no interest in engaging with people who downplay the absolute horrific ways many women (especially young girls out of foster care) are treated, just so they can push the BS 'sex work is female empowerment' rhetoric.

Researchers don't rely on reported cases of trafficking. Project Acumen was a 12-month research and intelligence study published in August 2010 by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Home Office, examining off-street prostitution and sex trafficking across England and Wales.

The study estimated a total of approximately 30,000 women working in off-street prostitution (such as brothels, massage parlours, and escort agencies) across England and Wales, operating across an estimated 6,000 brothels. Out of the 30,000 women, an estimated 17,000 were migrants. 2,600 women were identified as victims of human trafficking (15.3%).

It's important to get the facts right because earlier this year MSP Ash Regan tried to introduce a bill that would criminalise men who pay for sex in Scotland. The same as has happened in Sweden and some other European countries. She was told that if she introduced the bill it would harm women because they would be less able to screen clients.

Her response was that 60% of prostitutes are enslaved and therefore can't screen clients. Only 2% of prostitutes engage in prostitution freely and can screen but we have to legislate for the majority not the minority. Ash Regan hadn't researched it properly. Only Melissa Farley says that 60% of prostitutes are enslaved. All the other researchers put trafficking at around 15%. Trafficked doesn't mean enslaved.

If Ash Regan's bill had been passed Scottish women would have been harmed. There would have been no reduction in the amount of prostitution in Scotland but the lives of prostitutes would have been made more difficult and dangerous. Other false statistics from Ash Regan were to do with the effectiveness of the Nordic Model at reducing the total amount of prostitution and murder rates.

All prostitution is rape. The woman does not consent. She is paid to be raped, pimped and coerced.

Yes and they'd have heart attacks on here if they knew that...sometimes....the prostitute actually enjoys it if the client is attractive (read interviews about it)

The woman consents because she offers the service, she takes money for agreeing to have sex.

The woman consents because she offers the service, she takes money for agreeing to have sex.

So you’re in the “ you can buy consent” camp.

Sex isn't a service. Selling it is not consent to it. Selling the holes in your body for a man to stick whatever in them is not a job, either. It's not consent. Most prostituted women are there from poverty, trafficking, drug and sexual abuse. Never call any of that any sort of consent.

All prostitution is rape. The woman does not consent. She is paid to be raped, pimped and coerced.