prostitute use

[BeatendownGF]

I was talking to my DP of two years last night about stag dos and the issue of prostitutes came up. Whilst I am aware that DP received oral sex from a prostitute in Thailand a couple of years back, he has always maintained that he was in a bar (drunk) and the lady just got under the table and started doing her thing before he even realised what had happened. He also told me he viewed it as a stupid mistake. Whilst obviously not overjoyed by this, I could live with it because he regretted it and I thought he viewed it just as a stupid mistake.

However, last night it emerged that he also went to a brothel on the same holiday and received oral sex. He claims he hasn't lied to me and thought he had told me about the two incidents. I know this isn't true because it is not the sort of thing you forget really is it?

When I raised concerns about the fact that I felt he had lied to me he told me that he didn't see anything wrong with what he had done and that the majority of men would find it hard to resist sex on a plate. When I told him I thought he was better than that and that I felt he had exploited possibly vulnerable women (who often don't have a career choice) he told me that if he was single he would do the same again, as this is what happens on lads holidays and the ladies in Thailand were happy and could do worse than him.

AIBU to have lost trust in him and be devastated by his attitude?

There are people who have a vested interest in derailing. I haveno idea why.

Some of the poor dears are even surprised when the girls they try to get to go with them who are in school uniform turn out to be under age hmm

But lots of 5th and all 6th formers are over the age of consent

Aside from all the stomach turning Thailand stuff, would you trust him on a stag do or a 'lads' holiday - especially knowing at least some of his friends are like-minded?

You'll never be able to trust this guy. And you deserve much better. I hope you dump him.

I agree Bertrand...it is like once a thread matures past a certain stage a few need to derail to an area they feel they can dominate to be absolutely positive they have 'won the thread' or something. Anything that comes close to even possible implied sexism is a prime derail snorefest on MN.

Makes for very boring reading, and is of zero use to the OP.

Some of the poor dears are even surprised when the girls they try to get to go with them who are in school uniform turn out to be under age hmm

But lots of 5th and all 6th formers are over the age of consent"

Of course!!!!!!! No need for 50 year old men to check how old a girl is before he fucks her, is it?

Agree with those posters saying listen to your gut instinct- your partner is admitting to behaviour you find despicable. He is telling you what his moral values are. He is not a young man who made a mistake which he now deeply regrets. Only you can say whether this is something you can overlook.

Personally, I would not be with a man who had used a prostitute and did not regret it, far less one that said if he was single he would use one again. The "laughing about a friend hurting a prostitute during sex" is disgusting and I could not see past it, I'm afraid.

On the broader point, I don't get why it is even debatable that men (or women) using prostitutes is acceptable. Very few women do this job because they think it is a good career choice- many end up doing this due to poverty, poor education, substance abuse, occasionally mental health issues or by coercion.

Technically most prostitutes do "consent" (as in they are not forced kicking and screaming to allow a man to have sex with her) but they are "working" because they are vulnerable. Through my job I have come into contact with a reasonable number of these women (although I recognise men can be exploited too). Every single one has been vulnerable and open to exploitation because of those vulnerabilities. None saw becoming a prostitute as a positive choice they had made, many were made to feel they had no other option- either through threat of physical violence or having no other viable options. Some of these women were exploited at a young age and felt they were now worth no more than what they were. I find any man or woman who would purposefully exploit fellow human beings in this situation for their own sexual gratification despicable.

I have not been to Thailand, so cannot comment on the situation there from personal experience, but the fact there are a number of charities etc involved in trying to help women/children coerced or sold into the sex trade would suggest that there may be a significant problem. From what I have read many of these girls "chose" to do it to prevent themselves and/or their family from starving or to allow younger siblings to be educated as the family are so poor. I'm not sure I view that as a "choice", to be honest.

I think if a man (or woman) is choosing to use prostitutes (in this or any other country) you are choosing to exploit someone who is quite probably a vulnerable person for your own gratification. There is no defence for this.

jacks11 I don't think anything needs to be added to your excellent summary of what this particular thread was about.

Good post, jacks :)

I am going to take issue with this:

Technically most prostitutes do "consent" (as in they are not forced kicking and screaming to allow a man to have sex with her)

That is not the definition of consent.

There doesn't have to be any kicking, screaming, or force for a rape to have happened.

Just a lack of meaningful consent, of a conscious and deliberate agreement to have sex.

Which, as you identify, doesn't exist when you travel to a developing country to take advantage of their poverty.

Absolutely jacks- two points, though. The OP doesn't not have to listen to her gut. She can listen to her intellect, reason and moral compass. Nothing else is needed.

There is no such thing as "technical consent".
When the power balance is as hopelessly screwed the as it is in this context there can be no consent.

Bertrand I think Jacks gets the difference between consent and "consent"

That is what I took from her use of inverted commas.

Bertrand- I think often your get instinct is the right one. OPs gut instinct seems to be that she is upset, finds his behaviour awful and now doesn't trust him- in that situation I don't necessarily think she needs to do too much more thinking TBH. Although I take your point that other things such as sense of morality etc can also be used.

And I do understand the difference you are highlighting- hence my use of "consent". I know that rape does not have to mean a stranger dragging a kicking and screaming woman into a side-street or something like that. Most of the women I have spoken know that they are "selling" their bodies as a commodity. They know what is expected of them and what these men are buying, and are in the loosest sense of the word "consenting" to this "transaction". The reason they do this is varied, but boils down to being exploited because of their vulnerabilities. And yes, the power imbalance makes true consent impossible. However, I note that legally the use of prostitutes is not classed as rape- I suppose this is what I was getting at when I saying they women are technically "consenting".

Jacks your point about technical consent was clear and valid. Bertrand makes a valid point about "consent " being looked at in a wider economic context but for the purpose of this thread I don't think it's relevant.

In some ways a distinction on whether poor and exploited women (and indeed boys) are giving technical consent but not real consent and the Brooke Magnani types are giving real consent clouds the issue that prostitution is wrong regardless of the seller's status. Had the OP been a customer of Belle de Jour he's still a man I'd want nothing to do with.

Some of the poor dears are even surprised when the girls they try to get to go with them who are in school uniform turn out to be under age hmm

"But lots of 5th and all 6th formers are over the age of consent"

Right yes so obviously it's fine for men to approach girls in school uniform and try to get them to go with them.

I mean, what on earth

I don't think it's appropriate at all for men to do this to any women, if I'm honest, I mean OK if you're on a train and you've been eyeing each other then saying hello or something is one thing, but approaching girls in school uniform and trying to get them to go with you was, I thought, pretty universally recognised as creepy and inappropriate. Same as any other kind of opportunistic street approach, really, which are rarely welcomed by the person approached. But, when the person being approached is in school uniform, I would have thought that was a general no-no. Apparently not, they are fair game.

Learning something here. So men who approach girls schoolgirls on the street and try to get them to go with them, are AOK, as they are guessing that she is 16 or over, apparently, and so that's fine.

You see I don't actually think it's fine if they are 17 or 18.
And I also think that the sort of men who do this are targeting girls in school reason for a reason ie they are young, and often easier to manipulate.

And again. Just boggled that anyone genuinely thinks that grown men approaching schoolgirls and trying to get them to go with them is reasonable behaviour.

There are some real charmers on this thread aren't there.

Sorry, jacks, I read your point about "consent" again and I realise I was wrong- you're perfectly clear.

Still have an issue with "gut feeling" though- it seems to me that a gut feeling is one you can't back up with evidence. Whereas in this case ther is, sadly, evidence in spades. But I accept that is my hobby horse........

Men can be divided into camps of "Possible dating material" and "Men who have visited Thai brothels."

FWIW most 6th formers don't wear uniform round here.

Anyone who thinks that the sort of men who approach girls in school uniform on the street aren't looking for children / young people, who are vulnerable, who they can groom and manipulate is deluded, quite frankly.

Kumiho, it's like a Venn diagram with no overlap.

"I had to comment on whirls increasing histrionics and accusations of 'most' or 'lots' .of men."

I had to comment on your complete misunderstanding of her post. Which you are still failing to acknowledge.

As a point of information, she never said "most" men. She did say "lots" -which is undeniably true.

It's not histrionics to say, I'm not going to bend backwards to find "get-outs" for the man in the story who hurt the prostitute and laughed about it afterwards, because it's perfectly likely that what happened was exactly as reported. He paid for sex, he hurt her, he knew he was hurting her, he laughed about it with his mates afterwards. I would say, he's not very nice when it comes to sex. And that actually, it's not so hard to believe, because lots of men aren't very nice when it comes to sex. As evidenced the world over, every day.

Words like "hysterical" and "histrionic", I mean, really?

I'm pissed off that there are men who hurt women during sex, including women they have paid to have sex with, and that they find this funny. And I know that for some men, hurting women during sex when women don't want to be hurt, whether they have paid for it or not, is something that they enjoy. So, you know, they aren't very nice when it comes to sex.

I am surprised a comment which is quite mild - I mean "not very nice" isn't the strongest statement in the world is it - has excited such hostility.