in wondering what the difference is between a female prostitute and a male one?

[THERhubarb]

Yes from another thread that I've decided not to contribute to any more. But there is a train on thought on that thread that a man who uses a prostitute is a rapist. So therefore this logic is also applied to male escorts who are used by women?

Wondered what people's thoughts were.

You're taking away the right from women to be able to make money from their bodies in that way.

There are people being abused and taken advantage of in sweatshops in china, should we make factories illegal too?

Erm ... yes, we should make sweatshops illegal. If you didn't know, I believe they already are in the UK.

Having the 'right' to make money is not a 'right' over your body. That is fudging the issue, which is a simple one.

I am not taking anyone's rights away, nor suggesting it. Women (and men) are entitled to consent to sex. I'm not suggesting removing that right.

I am suggesting that men and women do not have the right over other people's bodies, that is, the right to buy sex.

No-one, in any culture, has the 'right' to make money. Sorry. It's terribly sad but it's also bugger all to do with rights over bodies.

Consent is that which is freely given. By definition, it is not paid for. It is a stupid anomaly of law when the law allows people to buy sex, because that is paying to waive free consent.

My bum is full of splinters from fence-sitting.

I absolutely see what you mean, LRD, about lack of consent being rape, and paying for sex means that consent was bought not given.

I don't know if I am ready to call it rape, but it is certainly abuse.

Is the reason that we resist calling it rape, because it makes rapist out of many men, who like to believe in the Pretty Woman happy hooker myth? That it means that men we know, perhaps even love, are then 'rapists'?

Ghost
I think you have been too heavily influenced by your friends, and have lost sight of the fact that for every woman who is happy to work as prostitutes, there are hundreds who are coerced, bullied, and abused into this 'job'. Many of them underage girls.

This is interesting

The average age of girls entering prostitution is 14 years old.

It is very depressing reading.

Don't necessarily agree with prostitution, but do not understand the consent argument. I go to the hairdresser and pay them to cut my hair - they would not cut it if i did not pay them.
Following your logic, they have not consented to cut my hair and i should be arrested for compelling them to cut hair?
Additionally very few, if any, people have sex for nothing - in a relationship, your partner gives you a number of things - such as time, attention, help, support (financial or otherwise) etc. If your partner did none of this, would you want to have sex with them?

Mme - mmm, I see where you are coming from and I don't feel comfortable with it either.

I would say, it is generally easier IMO to label an act rather than a person. It's not so emotive and it leaves us able to make up our minds about people as invididuals (if that's not too much of a cop-out).

younger - I don't understand the parallel, sorry? There's a big difference between sex and hair, surely. A hairdresser is doing something to your body, but not to his/hers.

Younger if my partner did none of those things I would break up with him.

MmeL, i don't think it is viewed as rape because under the current laws, it isn't - bought consent is sufficiently freely given to not be rape. It's interesting to wonder if later generations will look back and find that strange, as we do now with marital rape?

YY, it's not legally rape. I am aware my position isn't in keeping with the law, but it's what I hope will eventually become the legal position.

It is a fraught debate, I know - just I don't think it's fraught for the reasons brought up on this thread. It's difficult in practice because you are talking about very vulerable people, mostly women, who if you criminalize their punters, may suffer as well as benefit. And it is really hard to know how to approach that.

Erm ... yes, we should make sweatshops illegal. If you didn't know, I believe they already are in the UK

Purposely missing my point.
Just because some women are being abused selling their bodies, doesn't mean all are.
Just as some people working in factories are being abused, not all are.

We don't completely ban factories, so why should we completely ban prostitution?

We've banned sweatshops, and we've banned brothels.

mmelindor I haven't at all. I know what's happening. I know that there are kids out there forced into prostitution. I know there are women forced, and beaten and abused. I know there are dark and dangerous sides. But my whole argument is that there are working girls that are happy doing what they are doing. I've not denied that there is abuse, I've already said the trade is largely built on abuse! It's not 'happy hooker bollocks' as its been referred to. There are women who see this as a job and want to carry on doing so because of the flexible hours and money. Its easy to paint the picture of the helpless victim, but the women who willingly go into the profession get forgotten about.

Yeah I was just wondering if the legal definition is the "normalising" factor that made it seem "not-rape" to me and MmeL.

However if sex is seen by some as a service in the same way as hairdressing then I can see how the rape/abuse/assault question never arises for them.

To answer the OP, women aren't legally able to rape (except via conspiracy to rape) but if having sex with a prostitute was to be defined as a criminal act, which I am thinking perhaps it should, then both male and female punters would be equally criminal.

I believe all women who are selling their bodies, are part of an abusive practice.

I do not believe all factories are sweatshops.

I thought this was pretty clear from my previous posts, TBH, but there you are again.

Do you honestly think that will help? It'll force it further underground. Those who are most vulnerable will be more at risk. Brothels in the area currently get visited by sexual health officers and police liason, that'll stop. It'll do nothing but alienate and criminalise innocent people.

But Ghost I might be willing to sell my kidney, or my eggs, or my womb for surrogacy, but the laws of the UK do not allow me to do so - they put the judgement that society shouldn't have this "bodily integrity" sold for money ahead of my individual "right" and willingness to make money that way. The laws do allow me to volunteer these things, which will frequently be to someone I am close to emotionally in some way.

Is prostitution about providing a service for money or about sacrificing bodily integrity for money?

Yes, I honestly think it will help.

I don't believe it will force it further underground. Why would it? Think about that, don't just assume what you've read must be true.

Plenty of bans do not create underground crime scenes, but actually reduce the incidence of the banned practice. I believe this would. I also believe it's morally the right thing to do, because it sends the message that women's bodies are not for sale.

It won't do 'nothing but alienate and criminalize innocent people' - it will catch abusers who believe other people's bodies can be paid for and used for sex.

Ghost who are the innocent people who would be criminalised?

I see your point, I do. But in my eyes if the woman feels they are providing a service, then that is how it is. To them it is more about selling her body because it's a right, its earning a living. Some of the women I'm talking about arent privileged high flyers, but the money they make gives them the chance to live the lifestyle they so wish. It just doesn't sit right with me that if it was made illegal, she'd be left with no money to pay her bills, rent, feed her children. Or be forced underground. Where she would probably find herself losing control.
It's been argued that it would be better if everything came to the surface more, so it wasn't taboo. So it wasn't underground at all. The seedy abuse trade could potentially die out. So it became a 'profession' of sorts and taxable. I'm not sure how this would work either. BUT as I said the women feel they're providing a service just like any other person, so I suppose if they really felt that way they'd feel tax was right.

Who is 'them', ghost?

Is it your six mates, or the large number of abused women who speak out against prostitution?

Because, I feel that even if a small number of women feel they're 'providing a service', they really don't take precedence over other women who feel they're being 'abused'. On account of the fact they're being abused, that is.

I'm sorry, but I think the people who're being abused have greater need, here, not the people who're A-ok but selfish.

I don't believe it will force it further underground. Why would it? Think about that, don't just assume what you've read must be true

I'm sorry but I honestly can't believe you've just said that. This is where I bow out.

Thedoctrine - the innocent people are the prostitutes. What they're doing isn't illegal, they're innocent women making a living. Why should we make them criminals for doing what they want to do.

Ok, then, good to chat.

Criminalizing punters doesn't criminalize prostitutes, btw.

LRD -

what experience do you have with prostitutes, please do enlighten me. I'm genuinely interested. It's not just 6 mates, its a whole lot of acquaintances. I might add here that I worked as a receptionist in a 'brothel' when I was younger, alongside being a carer.
I put 'brothel' because no-one was actually in charge, it was just a group of girls renting a house and using it to work.
I've seen the seedy side, I've also seen the brighter side. The side where women are happy with their lives and have a choice in what they are doing.

Ah shoite, I was trying to leave with my head held high and a pony tail swish. Good night LRD and TheDoctrine

I thought you were going?

Ah well.

As I said - my brother works with prostitutes and has done for the last three years, and I've gone and heard women who've got out of prostitution speaking and listened to what they said.

I have also acknowledged several times that I believe you/others who say they know of the odd 'happy hooker', but I don't think that's reason enough to justify the abuse of other women.

No number of anecdotes is going to change my mind there, because my opinion isn't formed by the assumption it's a numbers game.

No number of 'happy hookers' makes it ok for prostitution to be legal, since it involves the abuse of vulnerable people.

Did you read the link, Ghost?

In countries where prostitution is legal, abuse is still rife. I lived in Germany, where it is legal, and saw a heartbreaking documentary a few years ago about girls brought over from former east block.

If we assume that 8
90% (ish) of prostitutes are working non-voluntarily, shouldn't we defend them rather than he 10% who are not being forced?

Haircutting analogy only works if part of the service is that I get to stab the hairdresser with her scissors.

If I pay a prostitute for letting ME use HER body for MY sexual pleasure, why is it in any way similar to me paying a hairdresser to cut my hair. I'm not using or abusing her body.