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?

Interestedpunter, why do you pay for sex?serious question.

There aew some truly awful sounding men on punternet and some that seem to pay for sex as they believe they have no choice. Men who are really shy and still virgins later in life. I think some are really looking for a relationship. Most seem to be married cheaters.

Gigabot, so I guess you are a punter. Why do you think I'm intolerent or a crusader. I'm not in the least. Just interested in reasons men use for buying sex.

"You directly quoted one very good answer to your own question"

Do tell; you have me intrigued now

Would like to clarify that I do think there is a difference between feminists and radical/ extremist feminists (much as there is a difference between a person of a particular faith and extremists of that faith who might decide to blow up planes etc).

Mind you I will probably leave this discussion for the mo as I have to head home and see my beautiful wife (who does not give me any sex or should it be ). Perhaps post later when she is not around to discuss this (or would that amount to me betraying the confidences of a woman who I should adore and be totally honest about everything I do with) - perhaps you guys should not discuss it with me?

I think Sabrina may have been referring to this: I appreciate the argument from the other side that some/ most women may not be making that choice voluntarily as they are trafficked, into drugs/ drink, coerced by others etc. and, therefore, prostitution should be banned.

Radical feminists are not extremists - radical means they get to the root of the matter which, in the case of feminism, is the oppression of women-as-a-group by men-as-a-group.

Sex is not something your wife 'gives' or 'withholds' from you. It's an activity that two (or more) people engage in because they are both into it. Maybe that's where you're going wrong. For whatever reason, your wife doesn't want to have sex with you. You using prostitutes probably doesn't do much to make her fancy sex with you.

HTH

Interesting POPG.

So, because he and his DW don't have sex, for whatever reason, he should leave then? Then he'd be free to have sex with whosoever was willing to have it with him?

Are you referring to my reply to you or to the p unternet poster?

POPG, yours, actually. The issue is they are not having sex. If that isn't resolving, presumably he should leave rather than cheat?

I appreciate the argument from the other side that some/ most women may not be making that choice voluntarily as they are trafficked, into drugs/ drink, coerced by others etc. and, therefore, prostitution should be banned.

You mean my reply to you? If a man is in a relationship where he is not getting as much sex as he would like and this is unacceptable to him he has three honourable options:

1. put the work in to try and solve the problem (this does NOT mean nag and cajole for sex)

2. negotiate an open relationship

3. leave

The same applies to a woman who is in a relationship where she is not getting as much sex as she'd like and where this is unacceptable to her.

That's fine, what I thought. So then he'd be free to have sex with anyone willing? Whyever they are willing...

Not if they are only willing because they have an addiction problem or they have a pimp in the background or they are desperately in debt or they are endlessly reliving childhood abuse or any of the other shit reasons women end up in prostitution, no! And the fact is, he can't check any of those things, so there's a fair likelihood he'll be abusing someone at least some of the time.

Paying for sex muddies the whole concept of consent because of this.

Dr Brook Magnanti on Sex Myths.

She's highly educated, does quality research, and is experienced in the field of sex work.

I suggest you all watch it and see a real genuine argument that goes beyond screaming "STOP DOING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!".

PlentyOfPubeGardens I think if the quote you put up at 20:03:15 is what Sabrina is referring to as answering my own question, then lets just say we disagree - I don't believe for one second that even "most" prostitutes are in any way coerced but, hey ho, we are not going to get anywhere on that clearly. That doesn't mean that there aren't any but I do my best to avoid them (and no - no one can be 100% certain of anything including whether we exist or whether the woman you are lying with is doing so willingly or not).

As for me creating a demand, well, I'm of the view that there will always be a demand for prostitution whether its purchase is legal or illegal and by making the purchase of sex illegal, you may reduce that demand for a while but it will slowly increase anyway (no matter how much help you provide to WG's to get over any addiction, problems etc that they have). Why shouldn't WG's who have these problems get this help now anyway without the purchase of sex becoming illegal? I bet if you set aside the money to help women who want to get out of prostitution now - get out - you'll reduce prostitution anyway without making the purchase of sex illegal, surely? I'm all for that (although the government is skint). However, it will be the women who do it in dark dingy alleys with a pimp at their door (who is forcing them) making sure them and the punter know when the policeman is coming round the corner who will suffer. It just makes the vulnerable women you are trying to protect even more vulnerable and more scared to get help. Please don't quote Sweden at me because:

1: the Statistics are scewed;
2: they are not conclusive (even by the report writers own admissions);
3: it too early to draw any conclusions yet anyway; or
4: If the government in the UK try to introduce it now they will not put the money into taking women out of prostitution that Sweden put in because they just don't have it.

I'm also going to have to disagree on your definition of radical it certainly is not the same as my definition but I just don't feel like getting into semantics. Albeit, if that is your definition of radical then are you suggesting that women who are just feminists and not "radical" feminists do not try to get to the same root as you are trying to get to?

I really do like the honourable options you list in your post at 20:34 and would love it if the world worked that way. However, IMHO its idealistic. I have tried options 1, 2 and 3 and none of them worked. You might say, i should have tried harder at all 3 but after two and a half years of not getting any despite not nagging her for the first year and a half forgive me for being so weak willed as to give up (actually I'm sure you won't forgive me - why do I bother asking ).

And yes, obviously, these are all views i hold because I am a punter and you strongly disagree with them because you are not (or are you?)

Interested, " radical feminism"is a two word descriptor. Radical can mean the things you said in other contexts, just as conservative and Conservative don't mean the same thing. Radical feminism is a branch of feminism as is liberal feminism. Broadly, the former pushes for a "root" change to society and the latter for improvements within the existing structure. Neither means "extreme".

Gigabot, the "women in tight pants" at the Olympics were doing their job as sports people. I'm pretty sure you know that.

Interestedpunter - actually, the quote I was referring to was the one you quoted by summerflower, you quoted it in one of your first posts on here. She has just reiterated her point above - and I agree with her post entirely. It is demand that drives prostitution, not supply- you need to tackle that demand. Making it socially acceptable to visit prostitutes isn't the answer.

The smoking ban DID affect cigarette sales. Anti-smoking legislation has reduced individual smokers' freedom to smoke, for the greater good of society. Smoking is far less socially acceptable now - criminalising prostitution would have a similar effect on the demand for it.

Interestingpunter, I think it's very sad that you describe your 'beautiful wife' on here, when you have already described cheating on her with prostitutes. :( you can't respect her much.

interestedpunter

You say you have tried all options to sort out your marriage, did that actually include the option of leaving?

I am not being unsympathetic, quite the opposite. After 2 yrs with no sex did you not tell her this was unacceptable and a solution needed to be found? Or did you decide that would solve the problem by seeing prostitutes?

I'm guessing your wife doesn't know? That's the worst bit to me. If there were any issues in our sex life I'd want them properly addressed, not have my dp go and have a little private sex life with hookers.

I regularly see complaints on MN from people who wish the smoking ban to be rescinded, because as non-smokers they find it much harder to avoid. When smokers smoked indoors, that's where most of the smoke was, now it's in your neighbour's garden (and coming in through your open windows), it's outside every pub and public garden...

Not sure the smoking analogy works, here.

Sabrina is right. You describe your wife as beautiful as though you adore her and yet you pay for sex.

What a kick in the teeth. I honestly can't think of a bigger betrayal. If you are one of those men who think its better to stay and do what you are doing, rather than face the fact there's something very wrong and break up, you are very mistaken.

PlentyOfPubeGardens my apologies. didn't realise it was a two word descriptor and ennis, my thanks for putting me right. You learn something new every day. Perhaps i should use "extreme feminism" or is that word taken as a two word descriptor as well?

SabrinaMulhollandJones I can see your point, although I am no sure you should have used the smoking ban as an example. I don't think it would work in the same way for punting. You would have to provide evidence to both punters and WG's that what they are doing is bad and I don't think at the moment you are able to do that.

Yes carmenelectra I did try leaving a couple of times but came back after a few days on both occasions. I can tell you it is because I don't want my children to grow up in a single parent family and that I view my happiness and that of my wifes as far less important than my children's happiness. Ultimately, I don't know. And yes, I told her on a couple of occasions (once in front of a counselor) that if she was not going to willingly have more sex with me then that was fine, I did not want to nag her for the same and I would go and purchase it elsewhere - she laughed thinking I was joking saying "yeah right". Does that mean I have cheated on her and don't respect her? Depends on your definition of respect I guess. We get on well now except for the sex and are bringing up two great bright confident children (well we both think so). Some people will argue that we are better off not being together. I am not so sure. I have certainly told her that when the kids hit 18, I will be leaving (something she tells me she doesn't want to happen).

carmenelectra just read your last post (which must have been posted whilst I was typing my last post). Is there something that happens to you every time you hear the words "punter" whereby you have to resort to some hyperbole drivel about what should and should not happen in accordance with the carmenelectra marriage rulebook? Or do you do this kind of shit on every thread on this forum about marriage? Kindly step down from your moral podium and let me be my own judge.

I think you've been a bit unfair on carmen there, interestedpunter. She's not on a moral high horse, i think she's talking intelligently and fairly. But I do think your posts answer my question about punters paying women for sex and how that translates into their treatment of all women - you don't treat them as equals and you don't seem to care. Women are there to provide you with a service. Your wife won't 'give' you sex, so you pay other women for it.

interestedpunter

I don't have a problem to be honest with single men seeing prostitutes. I don't necessarily think its a very healthy attitude, but I can see some mens motives.

I feel uncomfortable when I hear married men justifying their use of prostitutes as an attempt to 'save' their marriage or instead of leaving her.

However, you are right, its really non of my business. Just because I'd be devastated beyond belief if my dp cheated on mw this way, it doesn't mean your wife would. Perhaps she would prefer you to do that rather than leave.
I do wonder what you would do if your children found outwhen they were adults that you had problems in your marriage and you dealth with them by payings for sex.

Also, can I ask what would you do if your wife regained her interest in sex? Would you stop paying? Or would it be difficult now you know what you can get. I sometimes think men use bad situations like this as an opportunity to explore fantasies or things they have never done.

Again, though you don't have to justify yourself to me as I'm not your wife. I have a very different attitude to relationships and sex. And I couldn't claim to love someone who I dint want to be intimate with. Sexless marriages only work if both parties are happy with no sex.

So much to respond too!
First of all Punternet represents a tiny proportion of men using escorts and a tiny number of escorts that use the site. So it really shouldn't be used as a benchmark to gauge either parties opinions/views of the sex trade.
Maybe the title of this thread should have been 'should it be illegal for married men to pay for prostition' as it seems that this is what the 'debate' has turned into.
Throughout my life I have had friends who have never had to worry about anything. As children they grew up in finacially stable backgrounds, had no idea why people live in council houses or why people get into crippling debt and I find people like this have no empathy for anyone else who hasn't come from a comfortable background because they have no experience of it.
I am so thankful to have witnessed a broad spectum of life and as a result I feel I;m not as narrow minded.
It's much easier to turn your nose up at something you don't understand and look down on the rest of use from those ivory towers than try to open your mind and understand.
Throughout history men have had extramarital relationships. I'm not saying that makes it right, but look at the Greek's who found it acceptable to have relationships with young boys. Other infamous men throughout time have had mistresses, courtisans etc. So knowing all of this why not accept that a man's sexual desires are different to a woman's?
Our biological differences add to this. A woman is limited to when she can bear a child; a man isn't.
Not only that but perhaps once we have children and they become the centre of our universe perhaps we have to accept that it just isn't the same for fathers. It is more usual for a man to leave his children and go off with someone else than it is for a woman to do the same.
While feminists want us all to be equal, perhaps they miss these points and fail to appreciate that we are just wired differently.
I'm not saying all men and women are the same just that these points perhaps indicate the underlying reasons men seek out extramarital relationships.
As to the issue of men rating women's bodies on PN, well if you look at a broad spectrum of reports it's not just that that is rated. It can include how safe/clean the location is, how friendly the girl is, is she the same girl as her web pics etc.
To be successful as an escort and to charge sometimes 100's of ponds per hour you have to be good at what you do. Like any other business, plumber, sparky, builder, you build business by recommendation. And if you are putting yourself out there as being good at sex, hence why you sell it you are going to be rated on performance. If you don't like it don't become a prossie. Simple. Many girls like getting a good review on PN as it increases their business, not only that but there is also a rating system on a escort directory where good reports are very much sought after by girls as well as punters.
If you are a successful escort, in control of what you doing and it is your choice and for many it is just that, then perhaps there is a more equal balance between the male and female in that sitution then people campaigning for equal pay etc. As the latter does not change peoples attitudes just forces them to conform.
We do live in a sexist society men and woman are not eqaul possibly due to our emotional differences as I mentioned before. Any time you drive on the motorway during the week, look at the nice new cars, most are driven by men, it's not hard to see these stark differences yet even in 2012 we are trying to kid ourselves we can be equal rather than accepting and working through our distances.
And the comment about prostitution adding to how men view women is laughable simply because most prostitution is not out in the open or accessable by one and all. Unlike media portrayal of women, the fact it pander's to the idea of WAG lifestyle. Shops designing padded bra's for young children, images such as PB printed on pencil cases, top shelf mags in the local newsagent, these are probably a lot more harmful to young girls than something which probably isn't on their radar.
And when we equate it to smoking it simply doesn't make sense. Large corporations making money out of something that kills people, has little to do with women earning decent money to look after their families.
To kill demand perhaps the only way is to chemically castrate males or find some other way of killing their desire. Making it illegal will not.
I personally would be fair more devastated if my partner had an affair with all it's emotional entanglements then spent money on prossies. It would be devastating but at least I could console myself with the fact she was only doing it for the money and he was deluded to think she felt the same.
Know I'm prepared for the comeback to this post but just want to add that prostitution can be empowering to a woman but that is something you probably don't want to hear either.

There is a long historical tradition within feminism which recognises difference (i.e. that women bear and raise children, and have emotional qualities which men may lack) and seeks equality on those grounds, rather than through emanating male patterns of behaviour. It's a big leap from accepting difference to seeing this as a justification of prostitution, though. Accepting difference does not preclude equality, prostitution does.

I may be missing something, but how is an escort really in control of what she is doing? That is an illusion. The punter pays his money and gains control of her body - isn't that the point? I mean, Mr Interested above is a prime example as a PP said, his wife won't 'give' him sex, so he uses his financial power to gain it elsewhere. It's an FU to both his wife and the woman prostituting herself, one more literally than the other. Maybe there are things the women prostituting herself won't agree to, but it seems delusional to see this as a relationship of equals - he is buying her, he has the power, the more desparate she is for money, the greater range of acts she will agree to surely. If it was a relationship of equals, money wouldn't need to change hands.

And prostitution is crucially different to other jobs where people might campaign for equal pay because women are selling access to their bodily integrity, and there is no moral good to society which comes of it. That is not to blame women in that position, as I said before, the problem is created by demand.

And finally, as I have other things to do, I think the smoking analogy works to an extent: namely that those justifying and sanitising prostitution here are employing a range of rationalisations to resolve the cognitive dissonance which arises from knowing that what they do damages people. Smokers similarly employ a range of rationalisations to justify continuing smoking in the face of health dangers to themselves and others.

And finally, to the pervasiveness of sexual imagery in society and the harm this does, prostitution is not separate from this, it is the logical conclusion of it - if you have a society which depicts women as sexual objects, which grooms young girls to be sexual objects, then you have a society where women are expected to be available sexually.

I am speaking from personal experience, not something I just think or have gleaned from reading texts that I select to support my arguament.
Are you missing something, yes I think so.
I feel in control of what I am doing, empowered because if I don't like someones attitude when they contact me I refuse to speak with them further, let alone see them.
HOW CAN YOU SIT THERE AND TELL ME WHAT I THINK AND FEEL?
A punter does not gain control of my body as you make out, we are consenting adults, I have not consented to being abused and I can say stop at any time.
As for gaining financial power, it is done across the globe on a daily basis, so perhaps the point we are driving at is why we live in such a materialistic society that means people will do anything for financial gain.
Consider the woman who puts up with sexual harrassment as she is scared of losng her job, or being expected to work additional hours without any consideration of extra pay/benefits.
I do agree on your point that the more desperate the woman is she may allow things out of desperation, but that is often true in many situations legal or otherwise.
Bodily integrity? So it's okay to shag around for free but once you start charging it becomes something else? Right okay.
As to prostitution becoming the logical conclusion to sexual imagery in society it depends on if you are willing to class all acts which are done in exchange for financial gain as prostitution. My daughter has seen popstars perform in skimpy outfits, she does attempt to copy in her blessed naivety, when she asks me if she can sell her body as that's what it inevitably leads to you may have a point.
The best quote I have ever read on prostitution is this;

'A woman who sells herself to buy bread for her aged mother or her child, stands upon a higher moral plane than the blushing maiden who marries a money bag, in order to gratify her frivolous appetite for parties and travel. Of two men, he is the less deceived, the more logical and rational, who pays his companion of an hour in cash, each time, than he who gets a companion for life by the marriage contract, whose society was purchased as much as in the former case. Every alliance between man and woman in which either one is influenced by the substantial or selfish advantage to be gained by it, is prostitution.'
Max Nordau