Calling all prostitutes and former prostitutes on MN, as there seem to be a few around right now...

[Aitch]

I'm curious to know how it makes you feel to see threads on here from wives and girlfriends etc when they discover that their husbands etc have been visiting prostitutes? even if you are happy in your own jobs (and i hope to god you are somehow, because the alternative is intolerable), how does it feel to be confronted with the downside of your work on these pages?

(i think it goes without saying that the men are culpable in this scenario, but am looking for some insight into how your work squares with sisterhood etc).

Lesbians are indeed women. I'm one of them. I admit I didn't phrase that post in quite the right way.

Equating a need for sex with a right to rape someone seems very odd.

Me saying to (for example) an escort working for herself in the city who charges £1000 a night "can we have sex?" isn't raping her or indeed him (as the case may be). It's a transaction. If they don't want to, they can choose to say no (in this scenario). I do know that there are many areas of appalling situations - I worked for the DV charities for years and many of our clients were prostitutes who had been beaten, raped and worse by pimps for not doing as they were asked. In such circumstances I and the others I worked with did all we could to get them safety and a new life.

I would certainly like to see the industry properly safeguarded and regulated and protected, so that we take out those who are forcing women (or indeed men) to do things they do not want to do. But I am not convinced by any part of the arguments so far that (for example) me paying a professional independent escort to have sex, and her agreeing, is the same as me raping her or the same as me agreeing that other less fortunate women elsewhere should be raped.

So, I don't think anyone has mentioned... what is the moral difference between prostitutes and lap dancers, strippers, page 3 girls? Certainly, it was just mentioned that one sleezebag coworker used the latter and this was reflected in his poor, free for all attitude to women.

But, in terms of respect to women, why is a husband who gets his kicks from a lapdance from a nubile 18 year old stark naked girl who's sole job is to arouse him, morally more defensible than seeing a call girl?

'Sex work' is more than straight sex, isn't it? And going down that line of thinking, what about porn?

p.s. not that I have strong opinions on these women and their career choices, I just think that it does fit into the debate? Or not??

sure, it does. i personally think all that stuff is damaging to our gender. do i think that a lapdance is the same as going to a prostitute? i don't, no, but i would say that they are on the same spectrum.

the reason i find the happy hooker line dubious, however, is that while i see no reason to disbelieve the posters manda and watching et al who say that they are at this moment happy in their work, they do acknowledge that elsewhere in their industry women are being raped and trafficked, and they don't see that by being part of the 'high class call girl' fantasy they are at some level perpetuating the tolerability of that abuse.

Toad, selling organs is despicable. As is selling blood, your womb, or your eggs.
BUt more despicable are the middle-men who make lots of lovely money out of people's despearation.

I don'T understand the "need for sex" line at all.

"Sex" is something that happens between two people.

When a man buys a prostitute pleasure is a one way transaction.
So it's not rape, exactly, but it's certainly not sex. We need a name for what it is, but as yet there is none.

The prositute herself has a need for sex (which she does not get), as well as the need to be offered a better alternative to selling her body

amberlight, you might be interested in this thread, www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1021965-Councils-pay-for-prostitutes-for-the-disabled, which discusses issues surrounding disabled people, sex, prostitutes and feminism.

amberlight wrote - "I worked for the DV charities for years and many of our clients were prostitutes who had been beaten, raped and worse by pimps for not doing as they were asked."

That violence is absolutely unacceptable.
I know that the domestic violence charities are obviously the organizations with the relevant expertise and resources, but I am surprised that that pimp-on-prostitute violence is seen as "domestic" violence.

Pimps frequently have a relationship of a sort with the prostitutes. "Domestic" violence in its broadest sense includes any sort of relationship, including family, friends, partners or otherwise.

Vesuvia, yes, that particular case is one on which I've commented recently in other settings. Very difficult indeed.

I think the DV services for prostitutes are completely appropriate. The violence they experience at the hands of male pimps has its origins in the same attitude towards women (and towards themselves) that violence against any other women has -- women = property, women = currency, women = ego trip potential. A pimp is an egregious example of a man with a massive sense of entitlement and an impoverished sense of humanity, same as any other common or garden abuser.

Abusive husbands or partners frequently have a relationship of sorts with their wives or partners.

Men who abuse and harrass women sexually have pretty deep-seated issues. Their behaviour is not simply an extrapolation of the knowledge that strippers, hookers etc exist and make themselves easily available for all sorts of sexual interaction.

Someone who acts as a pimp, or someone who will repeatedly touch and speak inappropriately to women (esp subordinates) in his place of work (ie assault them), is not a properly functioning individual and pretty likely to have a diagnosable personality disorder.

Most men know of the fact of prostitution and yet would not even think of treating any woman in this way, ever. (Even a whore.)

Sakura what don't you understand about 'the need for sex'? You seem to be implying that the only sense of 'need' comes from when two people who cannot resist each other end up in the same room. When I used the word 'need' I was talking about our primal instinct to mate, which many regard as a biological imperative. It must be, to cause so much trouble. If there was no drive to seek sexual release then we'd be saved a whole lot of trouble. Nobody would cheat on their wives or visit prostitutes if all they had to do was say to themselves, "Well, I don't really need to have sex."

The fact is they could say that but the primal instinct would still be there.

I also think you've got an unusal interpretation of sex. Really, how many women on here can honestly say that every time they have sex it is a precisely 50-50 balance of participation and enjoyment?!

I don't think it is as simple as that though, watching. It is not just a matter of a man feeling a 'biological imperative' and needing to rush out imediately to find release with a prostitute.

If this was the case, then my husband could have simply come home to me. We had a good and loving relationship and decent sex life.

But he chose instead to sneak out of work to have sex with prostitutes. For him at least, it wasn't just the cosy arrangement to get some sexual release and affection he wasn't getting at home (that you describe upthread).

I think it was a more complicated thing about the kind of 'nice but dull' sex he associated with me and the dirty, exciting sex he associated with escorts.

And I think that there was also an entitlement thing, a poor self esteem/out of control ego thing going on and a I'm afraid, a hefty dose of misogyny as well. It is very complicated. I think he found the risk, the lying and deception thrilling.

As long as he didn't get caught (and he never thought he would) he didn't think he was hurting anyone. I have set him right on this.

I'm not trying to draw any erudite conclusions here - it's all too raw and personal for me.

But I really don't think it is as straightforward as 'primal instinct'.

A lot of men who visit prostitutes/strip clubs seem to have the old madonna/whore thing going on. They want to do grubby things, but they don't want to do it to their wife/gf who they've put on a pedestal. I managed to get my ex to understand why I hated lapdancing clubs by asking him whether he would like it if I did that. He said no, because you're 'not like that', you're special etc. I pointed out that it was horrible to think that some women are special and worth protecting and others aren't, and he did agree.

Dear Dittany

Just wanted to add that, as a man, I have had quite a high percentage of the women I have been involved with ask to engage in some pretty close to edge sexual practices - some of which i have gone along with, some not. I don't think of those people as abusers. I think that within healthy sexual relationships, there is a place for both men and women to 'play' with power and dominance, what might be regarded as 'degrading' even 'dehumanising' behaviour. Don't you?

I am not talking about BDSM Dominatrix here, pretty 'vanilla' type characters actually.

If you don't like it - don't do it. Simples.

yes, very "simples", papa

but absolutely nothing to do with this thread

Gah it says so much about a person when they end their paragraphs with simples.

It's so teeny.

oh dear.

AF - it has everything to do with the generalisations that dittany was making in her message. Read again from "Dirty exciting sex".

Emmyloulou - this place is founded on smileys and acronyms, don't write me off for a single simples - please!

Dittany - if your talking about being 'made', that infers rape. This post hasn't been exclusively, or even explicitly about rape.

Your "Dirty exciting sex" message wasn't about rape, it was about prostitution.

Also, not really getting the sarcastic tone or your reply to me? What's your point?

papa, I am sorry but your emotional intelligence is sadly not up to the premise of this thread

now post away all you like (as is your right), but don't expect anyone to take you seriously

sad, but simples