thelondonpaper - apparently visiting prostitutes is a perfectly normal thing to do...

[ChukkyPig]

Yesterday they ran a piece in the "columnist" section where people can send stories in.

It was a piece by "john" who basically justified his use of prositutes on the grounds that modern women are awful and won't look at him so what's he supposed to do.

here

I was a bit but thought, never mind, the letters page tomorrow will be full of letters picking holes in the piece.

Today the letters page was crammed with responses to the article, ALL of which said that it was sad the guy was so lonely, it was understandable that he used prostitutes, that it was fine these days, and that anyway modern women are shallow bitches so what do they expect men to do.

I was a bit shocked TBH that the paper didn't print a single letter mentioning exploitation, trafficing, that women aren't awful and what's he on about etc but no.

Anyway the paper had picked this as a "hot topic" so I go online expecting to see some anti-prostitution comments. But there aren't! One person (out of about 30) mentions trafficing/coercion but that's it. The rest of the responses are sympathetic and understanding, mostly saying that there are decent women out there.

Where's the moral outrage? I know it's a rag but this is bizarre all the same.

I have posted a comment but oddly it hasn't appeared yet - maybe it's being moderated - or maybe for some reason they are only displaying sympathetic responses.

I am having an outraged moment - please feel free to join me...

And - do publications have to give a balanced view on their letters pages? or are they allowed to just print one point of view? Guessing the latter...

Yuck at this response:

Why are you apologising for seeing a prozzie? Sex is fun and the only thing you should be ashamed of is paying far too much! You can have great, guaranteed sex with a prozzie for £50 or you can pay much more time and money wining and dining some whinging, whining girl and then get nothing - you tell me which is most logical! Most women nowadays are feminist man-haters. Just listen to the contempt with which women talk about men, even their husbands or boyfriends. They deride and scorn them instead of cherishing and respecting them. Why would any sensible man waste his time on such nasty creatures? Much better to just have the fun part - the sex - and forget the rest!

Hmmm, he sounds like a prize catch! I agree LLPJ. Blee.

Actually, Dittany, trafficked sex workers are usually the ones working in the working flats/brothels for about £40 a fuck: the traffickers don't send many trafficked women out at £200 as this is usually 'outcall' work ie the sex worker visits the customer in a hotel or his home. Traffickers don't like this set-up as it offers too many opportunities for the trafficked woman to escape.

Sure, some men who pay for sex have bad attitudes to women. But some men who despise both sex workers and their customers have horrendous attitudes to women: they boast that they 'never pay for sex' but think it's perfectly all right to use force or coercion on an unwilling woman, they hate the sex worker because they think:how dare she charge for what is mine by right anyway etc.

I think Madeleine Bunting at the Guardian was doing a book/piece about this sort of thing if you still thinking about journalists who might pick this up if the PCC are toothless (which I suspect they will be).

How utterly depressing. I used to work in an office above a square where the street prostitutes plied their trade. It was foul. Leery men (mostly builders in vans it has to be said) picking up girls who were off their heads on drink and drugs. I and other women in the office felt really unsafe walking from the office to the bus stop. The firm had to get solid metal gates to the car park to stop people having sex in it. Just gross.

what about men who pay for sex cos their wifes/partners are sick? Is it better or worse than having an affair?

A man surely shouldn't pay for sex or have an affair because their partner is sick. It's not like they'll explode if they don't get their end away. If I became unwell or went off sex I wouldn't expect DH to be struggling with that choice. I would expect him to remain faithful.

It's like saying it's understandable when men have affairs when their partners aren't up for it after birth. Which I think is despicable behaviour. Just because it happens doesn't make it acceptable.

It's not the case that male sexuality must be satisfied whatever the cost.

I personally would be gutted with both

If my DH couldnt have sex then I wouldnt have sex with some one else I just wouldnt have sex.

and I just asked DH and he agreed with me (well he would have to wouldn't he!)

I would be expecting them to support their sick wife/partner-if they loved them I would expect the relationship to mean more than sex so the thought of an affair or a prostitute is horrible.
I find it depressing and agree with dittany and a smallwhitecat. A man who would pay to have sex with a woman who probably despises him is to be pitied.

I have more sympathy for people who use prostitutes because otherwise they feel they would never have sex

I used to care for some disabled men who felt in this position - I am NOT saying that disabled people don't have sex otherwise....my collegue has three children and has been in a chair all his life.

there was an article where the woman had a chronic illness so her husband paid for sex. He said he loved his wife but had 'needs'.
Dunno if it would be better than leaving her or having an affair.

Thanks for all the indignant responses BTW I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking that this was the thin end of the wedge.

The suggestion of drawing it to the attention of journalists is a good one but I've never done anything like that before. Do I just find their link on the relevant paper/their homepage and send them the link explaining why I think it's so awful? Do I need to say what I want them to do/why I'm sending it to them? How would I put that?

If you let me have a few pointers I'll def draw it to their attention. Don't think I'd get very far with the press complaints people...

I saw something on the TV ages ago about some disabled men who slept with prostitutes and they went to Amsterdam and looked into the thing about sex workers in Holland being paid by the govt to have sex with disabled people etc.

The disabled man who was sort of the main person was saying that women wouldn't look at him under normal circumstances so he had no choice but to visit prostitutes.

I though what a load of cobblers, lots of men who aren't disabled can't find women who will have a relationship/sex with them and they don't all go rushing to the nearest brothel. Also, really, if men don't get sex they do not explode. The disabled man basically gave the same justification as any non disabled man - frankly they will just make any excuse to do what they want to do - which is pay women for sex.

i have to do a daily scope of punternet for my work and other simialr sites. to be honest - it is not the worst of them.
the amount of self justification and delusion that these men have is pretty incredible. dont they realise that for most prostituted women - they want to avoid penetration so will do anything to make him cum before that. it is not that they love sex but that situations have lead to them being vulnerable and at risk of exploitation.

1/10 men use prostitutes. 32 % admit that they would rape them given the chance and most worrying - 27% say they would rape a women if they knew they would get away with it. surprising - no. sad - yes.

some days i hate my job - it feels like you really see aspects of our society that i woudl rather not.

yet there have been threads where the wife is unable or just doesn't want sex and everyone is on the man's side. Surely its better to pay than to leave wife and kids?
Being devils advocate here.

i dont think it is better for a man to pay / exploit another women when his partner is not able to have sex or doesnt want to. is it a mans right to have sex - no matter what?. i dont think so.

weeonion I read a stat saying that 7 out of 10 men would rape someone if they knew they would get away with it in cosmo when I was about 17. I have never forgotten that stat but from what you've said it was overcooked. 3 pout of 10 is still extremely depressing.

I don't envy you your job.

needmorecoffee really? Have you a link? I can't believe that on MN most people would be in favour of a man looking elsewhere if his partner was ill. Maybe this was an exceptional situation...

Isn't the problem (partly) to do with the way men are led into believing they have a 'right' to sex? (Very badly out and I'm sure someone will pick me up on it).

I may be talking crap. I mean the attitude 'I want sex, it's my right to have sex'.

it's not just straight men of course, gay men use prostitutes too.

I mean 'badly put' of course.

Janos that was certainly the view of the man in the documentary I saw. it simply didn't cross his mind that he could go without, or that any man would.

I do think you have a point.

Why can't they just wank? Why do they have to use another human being as a masturbation aid?

gay men do use prostitutes but there tends to be a different dynamic going on there.

i think men are socilaised to believe that they have a right to sex and buying it is just part of that spectrum. i actually dont think it is all related to sex but also to power. wherever there are men and demand - there will be exploitation. that may sound like i hate men and i diont but i hate what some of them do and a great many others collude in.

on the other hand - i think women are scoialised increasinlgy into think ing that prostitution an dall forms of sexual exploitation are ok , valid choices and a form of work. after what i have seen and worked with - there is no way i could ever think of it as a valid form of work.

I've never bought the 'I deserve to have sex' line. No-one is entitled to it.

'Visiting prostitutes is only perfectly normal if you're a sad, pathetic man who is completely intimidated by modern women.'

That about sums up my opinion, too.

Well put.