Should it be illegal for men to pay for prostitution?

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

Should we criminalise all men who pay for prostitution, alongside help for women to leave prostituion?

"Hmm, in a normal relationship, don't couples both contribute to evenings out and holidays and buy each other gifts out of love!!imagine!"

So you she did Saskia, I again invite and you to have a go at telling me what a "normal" relationship is. Plus I suspect using the word "real" as you do does not in this context mean imaginary, or made up as in a lie. I suspect and I am clearly asking you for guidance on this, that you imply that spending an evening with a woman who is paid is not a real relationship, in the same way that carmen would seem to suggest it is not a "normal" relationship.

Sorry, yes she did. However, I would still say it's impossible to define a 'normal' relationship, because there is a range of 'normal'. Some people might say only those who are married and of the opposite sex have a 'normal' relationship. Other people practice polygamy, or have open relationships and consider themselves perfectly normal.

However, a real relationship would be between people who are equals, who enjoy spending time together, who are respectful of each other and who actually like each other. A situation where one person is paying the other to spend time with them is not a real relationship.

If I had to pay a man to spend the evening with me, let alone have sex with me, I would not consider that a real relationship. For one thing, the balance of power would be entirely in my favour because I was paying, so got to call the shots and decide where we went and what we did. He would be expected to laugh at my jokes, hang on my every word and tell me I was the best shag ever ... and at the end of the 'date' would go home and either sob into a pillow or phone a mate to laugh at the daft bat, her lame jokes and her strange kinks.

By "acting like your girlfriend", I mean french kissing and getting into it as if they care about you, and no I wouldn't expect her to say I need to sleep when it's a one or two hour booking, which is what I normally make. One poster on the punternet board said that we don't pay to sleep with women, we pay to be able to walk away afterwards, which is probably true for a lot of the men. In my case it's just a stop-gap between relationships.

runningforthebus and a couple of others seem determined to constantly portray us all as being like the worst they've read about.

Yes, there are some who want the girl to act like she's being raped, and there'll be guys who don't give a shit if she lies there like a dead sheep. Plus I've no doubt that if an agency was able to openly advertise a 14 year old escort for bookings they'd be inundated with bookings in minutes. Please stop tarring us all with the same brush, and ignoring the points I keep making.

Runningforthebus...cheaply dismissed my analogy as "stupid" and just resorted to attacking me as deluded regarding why I enjoy the meetings in the first place. Anybody who was even remotely unbiased and fair would recognise that the analogy I gave was a reasonable one. At the end of the day you're suggesting that because there's a small chance I could break the law by visiting an underage or forced girl that prostitution should be completely outlawed....it's perfectly logical to ask what the difference is with the John Mann MP situation. He drove his car without checking the wheel nuts were all in place. It was highly unlikely that this would be the case, and I'm not really attacking him, but the point is he drove his car, and didn't know for 100% certainty that his car was safe. He could have killed someone, or lots of people even since he was on the motorway. You pick on prostitution because of your intrinsic moral judgments. The trafficking, sexual slavery, underage girls, personal attacks on me being a deluded wannabe rapist are all to divert from the fact that, essentially, you're no different to those who attack gay people as it allegedly affects them. It has nothing to do with you. You couldn't sell sex - fine. Don't.

If there is an underage girl - I'm breaking the law
If she's forced etc. - I'm breaking the law

The only situation where I'm not breaking the law is where she's over 18, willing to be there and it's all done in private where you don't know about it except when you stick your nose in. She may regret it later in life, but those soldiers who have lost legs in Afghanistan will possibly have regrets and nightmares too. But they're allowed to join up at 16 and to go there at 18. Plus all the other stuff I listed in my previous post on that issue. 18 is an adult. For better or worse you make your decisions and live with it. Prostitution will not go away. Hasn't gone away in Sweden, it's just underground as you'd expect. Public attitudes are not as you think they are as their surveys are conducted by the same type of hard-line feminists with agendas that write the codswallop we get in this country. They get the answers they want. The men in Sweden are no different to anywhere else and will pay for sex as often as in this country given the opportunity.

I agree entirely with your post Saskia, in fact I think it is a very good description. We are going to disagree though as I am about to suggest that people who buy sex, male, female, straight, or gay are not sticking to the convention of worrying about any of the items you list. They want sex. That's it. Some choose specificly to have sex with payment involved as it does set the scene for a business transaction meaning that they do not have to worry about how they are perceived by their "date".

However my main point was going to be about the huge range as you very nicely outlined of how sexual practices of people have changed in today's society. Swingers, and sex clubs where couples go are popular especially on the continent. Couples choosing to post pictures and videos of them selves having sex themselves and with others seem to be as prolofic as paid porn sites. The regrettable but somewhat unstoppable practice of people sms and texting photos and messages is probably so wide spread that it would shock us all. Now some of these practices are not controlled by women or are done to subjugate women. However undeniably women are using these new social norms to make decisions and to follow life styles that give them control of their sexuality.

My point and other posters will know that I do argue for freedom of choice, which is NOT the same as arguing for sex slavery, trafficking, or paid sex, is that today's society leads the majority of adults to think that if they are operating in a context of consent, then they can enjoy a sexual side to their being which in times gone by could well have been denied them by social morality or lack of ability.

Reality. Firstly, This thread is (unbelievable to you I expect) not all about YOU. It is about criminalising the men that use prostitutes. You may feel that your conscience is clear - personally, I don't feel that can possibly be the case. It is your own little fantasy that these girls you pay for an hour with 'quite fancy you' and whilst they may not physically be gritting their teeth, visibly to the punter, they are possibly hating every minute of it. Just because you are coming up with the ready cash for an hour of this woman's time doesn't necessarily mean they are enjoying your company.

Secondly, here's your car analogy for you. You judging that a prostitute is fine and dandy by just looking at her at the start of an hour long booking is a bit like me popping along to John's Autos, seeing a nice red car, amd assuming all is fine with it mechanically.

The way you casually acknowledge and then dismiss any future mental trauma of the girls you book is callous and says an awful lot about you.

Reality you still have told us - how much would you charge?

*Only if I was foolish enough to buy a nice red car judging only on it's appearance in the car lot, it would only be me that that suffers. A consequence of you judging a prostitute to be 'ok', when she isn't, is very real mental and physical anguish to another human being.

All because you want the right to buy sex.

"quite like you" - for the second time, I never said that. Just that they didn't HATE me.

"they are possibly hating every minute of it" -The word "possibly" proves my point. You have an agenda, and your posts stick to the agenda in the absence of any facts.

just because you SAY something doesn't make it true. You keep on ignoring what I wrote or misrepresenting it for effect. You clearly have no interest in a debate, you just wish to attack me as much as possible with whatever you can.

How easy do you think it is to kidnap and falsely imprison a girl? Especially when you have to advertise her and allow the general public and police access to her without you being present...all without her saying a dicky-bird. It's so rare it's not an argument you can use. I have, as you say, no idea how the girl will feel about it later. We all have regrets later in life, but as long as she's old enough and is able to walk out the door and go get another job, that's all I can do. There are lots of things you can do at 18 that could affect your life and be more difficult to get away from than prostitution. The army can't just be walked away from, losing a leg from an IED as a result can't. Getting into debt with credit cards and mortgages and loans will stay with you for years. Marrying someone who beats you up every time he's had too much to drink is far harder to walk away from. Prostitution can be walked away from in an instant if you're not a sex slave which 99.99r% aren't. Yes there might be mental scars but not as bad as those from a war. They're over 18, they've made a decision, they're saying "yes". It's not your decision to unilaterally declare them a victim irrespective of the circumstances.

Saskia - I'm not a prostitute, I wouldn't consider it at any price. I'm not advocating it as something you SHOULD do, but as something a consenting adult should be ALLOWED to do. It's their body - not yours.

"They want sex. That's it. Some choose specificly to have sex with payment involved as it does set the scene for a business transaction meaning that they do not have to worry about how they are perceived by their "date"."

I agree with this. It's the reasons for them worrying about how they are perceived that I wonder about. I guess that for some people it may be a confidence thing, but I also suspect that there are just as many whose behaviour is such it would not be acceptable in a mutually consensual situation. Not that they are necessarily violent or into anything dangerous, it could be that they don't see sex a mutual thing, instead view it as something you do to other people and as a result treat sexual partners with less respect than they deserve. And over time that would be incredibly damaging to the person on the receiving end, so to speak.

I'm not an expert on this so no sources to add, just happened across the thread. But I know a couple of men who admit to using prostitutes, and neither of them have what you'd call a healthy attitude to women. I hope they aren't typical.

As to the different sexual mores - I don't have a problem with what consenting adults choose to do. Last time I checked I hadn't been elected Queen of the World

Reality So you are happy to treat other human beings in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself? That sounds incredibly selfish, and more than a little sociopathic.

"It's their body - not yours. "

It's not your either!

Yours ... doh, must type all the letters

What is a punter hoping to achieve here. It must be frustrating for you to encounter a board full of female posters who actually care about the well-being of other female people. And some who have some sort of experience with "sex work" themselves.

Prostitution can be walked away from in an instant if you're not a sex slave which 99.99r% aren't. Yes there might be mental scars but not as bad as those from a war.

This is incredibly offensive. There is reason why exit programs are needed, and a large amount of prostituted women suffer from PTSD. You need a reality check.
PTSD study

Oh and I'm not sure why you keep mentioning John Mann - since that incident was investigated as an attempt on his life? Driving without checking your wheel nuts is nothing like visiting a prostitute. Cannot be compared in any conceivable way!

Driving a car is an inescapable thing for many people and there are many legal requirements you need to fulfil to run a car - MOT, insurance etc. It is a functional thing- getting to work, getting to xchool etc. Few people think 'ooh I'll just take the car put for a bit' In the way you seem to think 'ooh i havent got a girlfriend at the moment- i think i'll book an hour with a prostitute'. Are you arguing that because John Mann didn't check his wheel nuts, you don't need to worry about the welfare of prostitutes you visit?

As for those of us who drive as a way to get to a-b in everyday life- we have a level of legality

Yes.

Oops ignore that last sentence -meant to delete it.

Saskia - it's their body. They make the offer.

I'm not keen on working in B&Q - walked out, literally, when I worked there as an agency worker. Would still shop there though.
Not keen on being a street sweeper, wouldn't deny someone else the right to do it though.

Just because I don't want to do the job myself doesn't mean I can't employ someone else who does.

CardgamesFTW - that's a 1998 study from San Francisco on street girls. Nothing to do with 2012 UK off-street agency girls. Which is what I use. Are you Fiona MacTaggart in disguise?

I mention John Mann because I was addressing a legal principle - nobody has to be 100% sure of something to legally do it. I do worry about it, never said I didn't - just that I DID NOT HAVE TO BE 100%

I'm not viewing any PM's from some weird punter, WTF

You can't be AT ALL sure that you aren't hurting women by visiting prostitutes- you can argue all day that the ones you visit are fine - but you don't know. There is enough evidence of the damage done to prostituted even if they aren't abused or trafficked - you pouring scorn on research that people link to and calling journalists 'liars' as you did earlier won't make it not true.

And creepy pm's too? Lovely!

I haven't had a creepy pm

The PM was just telling you that you "source" was a 1998 San Francisco street girls study. That's not creepy, it's informing you of your error.

The B&Q point was just to point out I don't have to be prepared to do a job to employ someone else to do it. I wasn't comparing them to each other, just the principle.

I'm sick of all this, you keep misquoting me, deliberately taking my quotes to the extreme when you're clearly intelligent enough to know that that wasn't what I was saying, and you keep asking questions I've already answered. If you've any more questions just look through pages 5 onwards, it'll be there whether you want to remember or not. Creepy PMs when you've no idea what it said.....FFS - case closed, point proved.

I can't get beyond this idea that it's ok because the risk of having sex with a trafficked/coerced woman is small. That if 'only a handful' are sex-slaves, that it's an acceptable risk? What risk is acceptable? 1 in a million? A thousand? 1 in 100? 1 in 10? 1 in 2?

I also can't equate "wanting to have sex" with "wanting to be paid for sex". Psychologically, they're worlds apart, surely?

And no, making it more illegal wouldn't stop it, but it would send a clear message that the government didn't see prostitution as socially acceptable in the least, they'd be setting the standard for women to NOT be seen as sex objects.