Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Men who buy sex, who they buy and what they know

208 replies

allthequeensmen · 18/02/2012 17:36

Threads relating to strip clubs and the sex industry always seem to attract a lot of attention on here so I thought some of you might be interested in this study:

www.eaves4women.co.uk/Documents/Recent_Reports/Men%20Who%20Buy%20Sex.pdf

OP posts:
Teeb · 18/02/2012 23:29

Some men are sociopaths. Some women are too.
Some women are victims of assault/abuse. Some men are too.
Some women are prostitutes. Some men are too.

I think there are many many possible reasons why men would pay for sex, and each man who does would have their individual reasons. But human nature is very complex regardless, and every day we all make decisions that have no real logical purpose or value.

CardgamesFTW · 18/02/2012 23:49

Dude I'm pretty certain 99% of the men who assault and murder prostitutes are sociopaths. How many normal humans would murder an innocent vulnerable person.

Of course, societal attitudes play a large role too, when we talk about category 2, those who "merely" pay for sex. There is a lot of ideas about men and sex which is used to justify it.

Like how men NEED sex, and can't just masturbate with their hand but absolutely needs to do it inside a woman's body. Lies.
And most johns are in a relationship. I read stats about that, will try to find 'em.

HotDAMNlifeisgood · 18/02/2012 23:56

I think there are many many possible reasons why men would pay for sex, and each man who does would have their individual reasons. But human nature is very complex regardless, and every day we all make decisions that have no real logical purpose or value.

I think it's just one big reason, really: in this society (all societies, afaican see), women are the sex class, there to be used, and men can get away with it. Nothing more complex or individual than that.

yellowraincoat · 18/02/2012 23:57

Is it really that simple HotDamn? Because the vast majority of men do not use prostitutes.

Charbon · 18/02/2012 23:58

Paying for sex is iniquitous in a society where men and women have equal value.

Proportionately more men buy sex and proportionately more women sell sex, so this is an inescapably gendered issue.

Sex work is not a valid choice when it props up men-as-a-group's right to reduce women to nothing more than our sexuality. That choice impacts on all women in terms of our opportunities and the way we are treated and it is therefore not a choice made in a vacuum, or one that won't also affect the people making it, in other ways.

It is a myth that normalising the process of buying and selling sex via the legalisation route improves conditions for those selling it, as the ominous and sinister effect of the Amsterdam experiment indicates. Legalisation there became a shop-front for more organised crime, human trafficking and abuse of sex workers and is why the Dutch government have already closed down a third of all legal brothels, with further radical measures proposed as a final step before a total ban.

Whereas the Swedish model of criminalising purchase reduced the demand and therefore the supply (which was the intention) and over a period of 13 years, has dramatically changed public attitudes to the entire practice of buying sex.

Selling sex is never acceptable in an equal society.

Teeb · 19/02/2012 00:09

I think it can be about men wanting to sleep with a particular women that they are attracted to who they wouldn't ordinarily get the opportunity to sleep with.

I think it can be that men don't want the commitment of a relationship, having to wine and dine and charm a woman or the time that is involved in that.

There can be a level of excitement in the idea of 'new' be that a new woman or a new experience.

I think the idea of masturbation and sex being interchangeable is a little off though. If a man has some severe physical disabilities say, does that mean he never deserves to be touched by a woman? To have a joint sexual experience.

There was a documentary I recall seeing that followed a sex worker, who was with a client in his 40's that would probably best be described as being socially awkward. She was the first woman he had ever touched, and was amazed that people are 'warm' to touch.

yellowraincoat · 19/02/2012 00:17

Good points Teeb.

Part of it I reckon comes from this idea that women "let" men have sex, that they won't want to have sex without a relationship.

Some men are scumbags who see women as objects.

Some separate women out into good girls and bad girls - the bad girls are objectified and they'll have sex with them.

Some men just don't think very hard because they're thick or they don't want to.

Probably a lot of men are just shit with women or want to sleep with someone better looking than them.

Some men have cultural boundaries that won't let them sleep with women but for some warped reason sleeping with prostitutes is ok.

Charbon · 19/02/2012 00:37

I don't think it matters what men's motivations are. I don't think anyone has the right to buy sex from another human being, full stop.

youngermother1 · 19/02/2012 01:20

Charbon - provocatively, does that mean no-one has the right to sell sex to another human being?

Seriously, my view is that the flipside of legislation, ie really hammering the illegal was not followed through.
I think that the authorities view prostitution as inevitable and do not have the resources to separate between voluntary here and coerced. If you legalise certain brothels, then you also have an obligation to:
a) monitor those very carefully and prosecute all people who step over the line and;
b) come down hard on illegal use
Ie lock up user of illegal prostitution for 10 years - there is no excuse if legal option is available.

Charbon · 19/02/2012 01:36

It's not provocative. I think that's a fair question.

In principle, I don't think anyone should have the right to sell sex to another human being, but temper that with an objection to someone being criminalised for doing so. Since the practice of selling sex needs to be seen in the context of patriarchy, abuse, coercion, addiction and as a by-product of other global organised criminal activity, in my opinion it is more just and fair to focus attention on criminalising the buyer and the creator of the demand for paid sex.

I agree with you that legalising prostitution as a silo activity without other supporting measures, is remarkably inastute and as a practice, has led to even greater human misery in consequence. However rather than viewing prostitution as 'inevitable' and concluding that it must therefore be regulated, normalised and packaged as a valid human choice, I'd rather we said that it is indefensible in an egalitarian society to pay another human being for sex and that we will criminalise and prosecute those who organise and partake in its purchase.

youngermother1 · 19/02/2012 02:19

Charbon - agree in an ideal world, but based on the figures, that means locking up over 10% of men on a permanent basis.
I think legalisation with proper prosecution for illegal activities would be the best position for today. Longer term is better education and societal pressure on users which would, hopefully, reduce the issue over the next 20-50 years.

MitchieInge · 19/02/2012 02:36

they don't have to go to prison, that's quite expensive, they could be heavily fined and be placed on the sex offenders register for a few years while investment is made into housing, education, addiction services and employment opportunities for the women - this is the bit that doesn't seem to be happening strongly enough in areas that adopted the Swedish model

I don't think I really believe in prison although anyone who pays for sex and is reckless as to whether the seller is coerced into providing the service undoubtedly deserves to be jailed

Charbon · 19/02/2012 02:41

Incarceration is only one method of criminal punishment and even then this would be unlikely to be an indictable offence resulting in imprisonment (and certainly not for life).

A system of heavy fines, community payback, rehabilitation schemes or other more proven punitive deterrents together with the naming and shaming of repeat offenders, is in my view more productive.

I can't think of anything that has been permanently decriminalised that hasn't served to normalise that behaviour and increased its incidence, never mind led to its complete eradication within 50 years.

Toadinthehole · 19/02/2012 02:43

In New Zealand, prostitution was legalised eight years ago, and before then the authorities turned a blind eye to it. The ostensible reason for legalisation was to protect the women involved, and to regulate and tax the industry. Although MPs were given a free vote, I understand the Prime Minister at the time (Helen Clark) let it be known quietly that she supported legalisation.

Most articulate groups favoured prostition (ie, the Prostitutes' Collective, feminists and even the more liberal element in the churches). The prevailing view was in my view oversimplified, ie, a consenting non-coerced adult had the right to sell sexual services if (s)he chose. Questions as to whether this is the way the industry would operate if legalised were not really considered: it was assumed that once legalised, the criminality and coercion would wither.

A review a few years later concluded that a) there had been no increase in prostitution (contrary to fears) and b) there was no evidence of trafficking. Rather obtusely, this review did not cover prostitutes who did not have English as their first language. I'm sure I don't need to explain why I think this was obtuse.

There have been complaints by NZ prostitutes that they are being undercut by unlicensed brothels operated by people from abroad: there are further anecdotes concerning how organised crime (also from abroad) operate these businesses.

The main street in my town contains two places that are pretty obviously brothels (ie, they advertise "massage and escorts"). One is right on the corner of the town square. It is quite a seedy-looking place from the outside (and in case anyone wonders, I have not seen the inside).

None of my friends have admitted to visiting prostitutes, although there are a few who I think probably have. There is still a stigma about doing so. The general impression is that men who visit prostitutes do so because they can: it is not really very different from picking up someone in a bar for a one-night stand, except that they don't pay for the drinks. A lot of the motives stated in this discussion above would be considered by most people down here to be overthinking. The presumption about Antipodean men tends to be that they are unreconstructed red-blooded men; they will ogle women, they will go to strip clubs etc, and the women tend to accept to a greater extent than I think women would in other parts of the developed world.

To my mind, legalisation has not made much difference: prior to legalisation, there were places in the dodgier parts of town that advertised "massage and escorts", and most broadsheet newspapers carried advertisements for prostitutes as they still do. I suspect that despite legalisation, a fair amount of the sex industry remains underground because it is more profitable that way and there is exploitation. The problem is that no one is investigating these issues, leastways not publically.

sunshineandbooks · 19/02/2012 08:43

I don't understand some of the arguments on this thread.

Even if there are some women - and I'm sure there are - who come from healthy backgrounds where they have never experienced abuse/exploitation and have made a genuine free choice to work as a prostitute, how does that prove anything? Even if it's a good choice for them as an individual, it can still be hugely damaging to women generally. Same as the modelling industry and the massive increase in easting disorders and body dysmorphia since the fashion for size 0 began.

I have no problem separating sex from emotion. For many people - men and women - it can be a recreational activity in much the same way as playing tennis. I don't think you can apply that argument to prostitution. A prostitute is at extremely high risk of being battered or contracting a STI, and her 'client' (who has no emotional investment with her) is less likely to take steps to protect her and may, indeed, actually consider her unworthy of any protection (i.e. being afforded the same rights to safety and respect as others). That cannot be left out of the equation. Although the stats for assault and rape are high among the general population at large (1 in 4 women experiencing DV and 1 in 9 experiencing rape), they are MUCH higher among prostitutes. I think that says quite a lot about how the men who use prostitutes perceive them. Men who use prostitutes have a much lower opinion of women than men in the wider population. Sex for prostitutes is fraught with danger. It is not even comparable to recreational sex in which someone gets paid. I'm sure you can find examples of high-end prostitutes who will 'disprove' this, but it's important to remember that they are the exception in the same way that people earning over £100,000 are the exception in the working population as a whole (less than 1% in fact).

Also, the effect of abuse on the psyche is well documented - of course it muddles thinking, damages boundaries, makes people vulnerable, etc. To deny that seems extremely odd and smacks of wanting to justify prostitution at any cost. Why would anyone do that? There are arguments for the legalisation of prostitution that don't seek to deny the evidence that prostitutes usually (not 'occasionally' or even 'quite often', but 'in most cases') come from abusive backgrounds of one sort and another and will have a high (almost certain) risk of experiencing future abuse.

AThingInYourLife · 19/02/2012 08:54

"I don't think it matters what men's motivations are. I don't think anyone has the right to buy sex from another human being, full stop."

+1

HotDAMNlifeisgood · 19/02/2012 09:03

+2

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 19/02/2012 09:10

I think the kind of attitude to women you must have to think it's OK to buy sex is probably similar to the kind of attitude meat eaters have to animals - I think pigs are delightful creatures but ultimately they're there to provide me with sausages and bacon (vegetarians, please substitute a plant-based example here). Or perhaps how people can think that horses are lovely but are ultimately there to be ridden.

To think about human beings in that way is just wrong.

jenny60 · 19/02/2012 09:15

+3

JugglingWithTangentialOranges · 19/02/2012 09:18

... back to read later

BertieBotts · 19/02/2012 09:24

"If a man has some severe physical disabilities say, does that mean he never deserves to be touched by a woman? To have a joint sexual experience."

But it's not a joint sexual experience if she's doing it for money or because she's terrified of her pimp. Even if she is one of these (mythical or extremely small in number) "happy hookers" who love sex, any and all sex and love their job, do you think she's really making a connection with that person? It would be impossible to make a "connection" with all of your clients. It's so insulting to disabled people to insinuate that this is all they deserve, or that they should be so desperate for sex that it gives them the right to exploit another human. And what about women with severe physical disabilities? Don't they have sex drives? Hmm

Society as a whole ought to start thinking of disabled people as human and giving them the basic human respect they deserve. There is no reason why a disabled person could not have a relationship except for prejudice.

BertieBotts · 19/02/2012 09:26

I probably worded that wrongly, I hope I have not caused any offence. I mean no reason why a disabled person should be any less likely to have a relationship than anybody else, except for prejudice.

JugglingWithTangentialOranges · 19/02/2012 09:34

I think you make a very good point BB. I would doubt you'd caused any offense.

AThingInYourLife · 19/02/2012 09:36

""If a man has some severe physical disabilities say, does that mean he never deserves to be touched by a woman? "

Deserves to be touched by a woman?

Ick. Just ick.

Being disabled doesn't give you a free pass on exploiting other people.

"being touched by a woman" is not something you deserve, or something that is owed to you by virtue of being a man.

It is up to individual women to decide they want to have a sexual relationship with you.

The disabled man argument usually then turns into, well what if you are just really ugly, or socially inept, or otherwise sexually unattractive - why should those misfortunes mean you don't "deserve to be touched by a woman"?

It all basically boils down to the same thing - men have a right to sex, and if nobody is willing to give it to them, they must be free to use coercion.

epicfail · 19/02/2012 12:20

+4 (to Charbon's comment)