To think that you can absolutely buy consent

[TheNewWasp]

Unfortunately, we have a constant influx of threads of posters that have caught their spouses having lap dances or spending money on a sexual worker.
Regardless of how hurting this may be, I can't understand why many posters argue that "you can't buy consent".
Not sure if the assumption is that every sexual worker/prostitute is being forced to do that activity. Many do, that is the sad reality, but not all of them.
In fact, we have the occasional poster that said they used to work as a stripper and they used to make fun of their customers but in the end it was just a way of making good money. Was not this person selling their consent for an interaction that otherwise would have not happened?

"Consent cannot be bought" is a reasonable claim if it's being used as shorthand for "consent to sex cannot be validly bought", with supporting arguments for it.

It's an utterly useless and obviously wrong claim if offered as a supporting argument for the claim though. Because consent is validly bought to all sorts of things all day long, including unpleasant and harmful things. The valuable bit of the discussion is whether/why sex is different from most other things in that regard.

That's a warped framing. Men have a sex drive geared towards women. That is biological and inherent. It has nothing to do with some women selling sexual favours or not.

However, healthy men see women as more than just one specific function. In the eyes of men, women are sexual beings ('objects'? WTF?), but that doesn't mean they are only sex objects.

It's warped victimhood mentality some women have, that makes them think just because men would perhaps like to have sex with them, that means men see them as less than human.

What about professional fighters? Can they consent?

I think consent can be bought, for all sorts of things.

I have friends who used the Adult Work site, to earn extra money, they had no partner, certainly no pimp, they picked and chose the jobs they wanted and had various other conditions as well as payment.

Several of them would not meet a punter for sex without first having done a video call with them - so no matter how much money they were willing to pay, if the sex worker did not like the look of them/did not want to have sex with them for some other reason, the sex would not happen. The others made it clear they could and would refuse the job on the day if they wanted to (and set themselves up so that this was possible).

This doesn't mean that doing this work was good for them - none of them do it now and I am fairly sure they'd all agree it wasn't good for their mental health at all.

Now thats obviously not always the case and the idea that every sex worker is consenting because they're being paid is clearly wrong.

I can think of a few other areas where people may appear to be consenting to something harmful and damaging, but there are other factors that mean that consent isn't really consent.

Children who learn to box and are offered boxing as a way out of an otherwise shitty life for example - are consenting to a high risk of brain damage. Is that really consent, given the options available to them and their level of understanding at the time, I don't think it is, but it is legal and those putting kids in that situation are generally applauded!

Going for a less obvious example - little children who learn gymnastics or ballet - both of these require training that will 100% damage them physical and irreparably if they continue it into adulthood and do it competitively/professionally and probably even if they don't get that far. If they do, most will suffer mental health issues, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, depression etc etc as a result of the training and discipline required and the generally toxic dance/gymnastics industry.

When did a parent last genuinely think about this and consider informed consent when sending their 3 year old to gymnastics or ballet class?

It's really not a simple topic.

Damned right. Two entirely different circles.

I won't go to a business that is notorious for modern slavery, I won't buy my clothes from a shonky sweatshop retailer exploiting child labour and I WILL continue to write to my MP in support of the Nordic Model to empower women and penalise the men who exploit and damage them.

Every woman willingly engaged in the sex trade (which is a far lower number than Pretty Woman / Happy Hooker narratives like to claim) participates in damaging all other women as a sex class. Some women are prepared to go along with the narrative that it's fine and dandy for men to buy the right abuse women. This is seized on by the "sex work is work" rape apologists to show how great and empowering it is for women to be able to earn money from hapless men by being sexually assaulted for cash.

What happens when prostitution is legalised? The demand for it actually increases, the abuses increase and the trafficking increases. You can see it in Germany.

Aquiescence and coersion are not "consent" to sex.

The interesting thing about the Nordic Model is that where its been introduced - punters are criminalised, not sex workers - it's been shown to reduce the level of misogyny in society overall. It moves the shame.

As the brave and mighty Gisèle Pelicot says, the shame is theirs, not hers.

No, other jobs you wear protective clothing.

What's that got to do with the question of consent?

Lol you mean the protective clothing that means you don’t hit by bullets or fall off a mountain? Course.

I do agree that poverty and circumstances can lead people to take jobs as sherpas or join the military- army recruitment in poor areas is a real tactic.

But why a race to the bottom- sex work isn't suddenly safe because people die in the army? Criticise both...hope for better for young recruits and exploited children, not worse for sex workers.

Men's ejaculations are not more important than the health and safety of sex workers and treating it as legitimate work with acceptable risk is damaging to them, to me, to society.

Tbf a lot of sex workers will only work with condoms to avoid STDs.

Many punters insist and pay for bareback

Also, condoms don't prevent skin to skin STDs for example herpes, syphilis and HPV.

Don’t forget lice…

I can’t see any clearer indication that consent can be paid for than a difference in the price of with-condom vs without-condom sex.

Prostitution is legal (well it is where I am in the world)

Only if the SW offers it!

Yes, but some may be poor, drug addicted etc and do it for more money. Or some customers stealth 😡

They do protect somewhat but yes, no completely. Condoms are actually better at protecting women than men from herpes but they are obvs not 100% effective for those.

When reading debates on this, some argue that measures like the Nordic Model actually hinder protective measures since it prosecuted brothels, and classifies women who sell sex together (in the same building etc) or people who stay in the same building during the 'transaction'/help screen clients etc as pimps/brothel facilitators, so drove women to sell sex alone, putting them in a more vulnerable position.

Another argument was that prosecuting sex buyers meant that clients who were more likely to agree to condoms etc didn't go, so the clients still coming were ones who would demand bareback, putting women in a harder negotiating position.

I need to check the facts on this. I know that some escorts here seem to use agencies which filter the clients to some degree. Not sure how effective they are.

And ofc while I don't think women working together should be automatically prosecuted, how do you differentiate between a helper and a controlling pimp/madam?

As we know, decrim advocates often say that brothels offer more safety to women with other people around, panic buttons etc (how would someone reach them tho?) but as we know there often more like slave establishments.

My instinct leans to the Nordic Model, but I do think criticisms should be scrutinised so we can make it as effective as possible.

Yes they may offer it and stealthing is a risk of the job you have to be on your guard

It’s not consent though. It’s the need for money for which you agree to do things you’d rather not.

By that bar, huge numbers of jobs are non-consensual...