The invisible men project

[ArmyOfPenguins]

I think it's important that the buyers' choices in prostitution are highlighted and shared. This project was linked to on FB. Thoughts? I think it's a great idea.

the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/

another one who has had the lightbulb moment as a result of those posts.
Thank you Beachcomber.

Thank you all for getting it.

CaptChaos - MacKinnon discusses that in the chapter I linked to. She identities how in male supremacist society whether a woman has been raped or not is decided (in law) by the perception of the man.

"The problem is that the injury of rape lies in the meaning of the act to its victim, but the standard for its criminality lies in the meaning of the act to the assailant."

"The crime of rape is defined and adjudicated from the male standpoint..." (both quotes from the left hand side of page 5 of the pdf )

minnehaha, the feminist analysis as outlined above applies to all women, not only women in prostitution. The MacKinnon quote is from a chapter that discusses rape, consent and coercion - it isn't about prostitution. I have raised in WRT to prostitution but it concerns us all.

Beach, I would also like to thank you for this. I've had a true lightbulb moment too - will read that chapter properly later.

I've seen two threads, in the last week or so, talk about consent and rape (not prostitution but have been so relevant to this.) I won't go into too much detail - but just to say one centred on something already mentioned upthread - a woman wanting sex because she wanted to conceive, but the man just pushing her down on the bed, having sex with her before she was ready, which left her uncomfortable, bleeding and in tears. And feeling used. She wouldn't even hear of this being called rape, and nor, sadly, would a lot of women on the thread.

The 'she consented to sex, she wanted to conceive' seemed to be the dominant idea on the thread, as was the idea that he couldn't have possibly known that she wasn't consenting to it or that she didn't withdraw consent. As if a woman who wants to conceive therefore consents to any sexual treatment by a man - and just has to accept it because she didn't actually say "no".

Your posts have really clarified these things - 'consent' being a patriarchal myth is something I hadn't considered before - I'm wondering if the WBY section on consent could be better worded now.

I actually stopped reading MN for a bit because of those threads - but I came back to the right section - thank you.

This thread has been really interesting reading. I'm generally crap at articulating opinions especially on big topics such as this, so I'm basically thinking out loud here, apologies if it's badly worded. To be honest this isn't a topic I've considered in this much depth before.

I have one question for minehaha, if it's not too personal, what are your reasons for going into prostitution/being a prostitute?

I think that whilst for some prostitutes it is something that they have chosen to do, and many punters are not violent or abusive, it's not acceptable that any prostitutes, no matter what the number, are in it against their will, or that any number of punters are violent or abusive.

I don't agree with prostitution or think it's right that men should be able to buy women's bodies as a 'commodity'. I find it repulsive that any man would think it was ok to buy sex, especially if they are married or have a partner.

However, I don't think making it illegal would necessarily be the answer. I think that would just push it underground and put the women involved in more danger. The 'normal' punters may stop buying sex but the ones such as those quoted in the link in the OP wouldn't. Similarly some sex workers may choose not to be involved any more if it was illegal but that would just mean that those that remained in prostitution would be the unwilling and most vulnerable.

I don't know what the answer would be though.

am posting from phone so please forgive rubbish formating of post.
i am really glad that there are women on this thread who get the analysis i have posted.

there's so much to be said on the construct of consent - it probably deserves a thread of its own. we did have one a while back and it was very interesting.

anyway i just wanted to say that what i have expressed on this thread are my words WRT a concept that i struggled with and was helped to really grasp by other women. other feminists. some of them published writers and some of them radical feminists who give of their time and intellectuality on the internet and in women's groups.

particular thanks to ex MNers Prolesworth for the MacKinnon quote and dittany for her helping me grasp what consent really is in patriarchy.

Yes a separate thread about consent is a good idea. It's an important thing to talk about.

I've been an active member on "punting boards", I've read saafe and others and now here. They all have one thing in common; rather than engage in a real genuine discussion to explore any "truth", the core or coterie of regulars to each board all display the exact kind of abuse of power you feminist women here pretend to despise. But I digress.

scallopsrgreat: "Prostitution is demand driven, not supply driven. The blame can quite happily be put entirely on the punter."

That is absolute tosh. It is a psychologically proven fact that when porn, loosely dressed women or any sexually explicit images are regularly presented to sexually active males it triggers more activity and desire within them. Why do you think ordinary men joke about when they were young and how they would sneak their mum's Sears/Grattan/Littlewoods catalogue lingerie section into their rooms BEFORE they had even had one experience with any girl?? How the hell is that demand driven? It's not, and what you are ALL missing is the simple fact that heterosexual men are wired to find women sexually attractive so desire is a natural act. In a civilized society, hopefully, most men use that energy to pursue other avenues but if you place temptation in the way it will be answered with action in some men. Even religion blames women and labels some quite innocent women as harlots which is of course ridiculous.

The entire issue of sex (outside of any abusive aspect), is absolutely a 50/50 issue, even with "supply and demand" or any other area. If you 'happily blame the punter' then you are closed minded and wasting everyone's time IMHO, because it simply is not true.

Beachcomber: "I hate it when women's bodies are compared to fags and booze. Speaks volumes."

Another pointless ill considered comment with no consideration for the discussion. Please quote where "women's bodies are compared to fags and booze"? Before you do, you might want to consider that my comments in this area began with "the law almost everywhere, fails to grasp at the real issue" and the reason for this is that I was comparing "the law" and its effects on these matters, not the women's bodies at all.

Beachcomber: "And it is such a stupid thing to say."

Quite frankly I find all your posts utterly idiotic. "the argument that certain women should be made sexually available to men." Where is that argument?

Women, often, make themselves "sexually available to men" and men respond. You and others here are 'tarring all men or punters/clients/regulars or whatever label the individual circumstances call for, with the same brush'. That is absolute idiocy. The matter of prostitution as a whole is far to big an issue to discuss with any reasonable outcome or even depth of meaning in a thread like this one. Prostitutes can be labelled as such with women who are trafficked, coerced or forced, to those who swap sex for favours, the casting couch and the character portrayed by Joanna Lumley in Shirley Valentine "a hooker", and all those in between. Punters, in truth, can also be labelled as such for a variety of different actions. The point is, which I hope some here will at least try to grasp, is that you cannot blame an entire gender or section thereof for a problem as vast and widely varied as this one.

There's no need to get so angry or so patronising.

You don't agree with many people on here - but that doesn't mean that they havent considered and don't understand your argument. Please have the courtesy to appreciate that.

Beachcomber: "consent" by your somewhat circular, merry-go-round definition ought to be removed from the English language as clearly in your world there is actually no such thing. Also this..

"Consent in prostitution is pay to rape" as a blanket statement in consideration of all possible punter/prostitute situations is offensive, legally incorrect and morally wrong!

Also, if "punters know this" within the context of your message, how come you mention "altruistic punters" or "Mr Nice Guy" punter who I am sure you understand to be he who deludes himself into thinking the girl actually likes him. You must be aware that some punters are so emotionally detached from reality and actually do believe that they can buy not only sex, but respect also. If you accept the "deluded punter" argument then you must also accept his lack of knowledge in any harm he may do as a consequence, actually to both parties.

To be clear here, my argument is that you are correct in [b]some[/b] circumstances but certainly not all where as you (and others) seem to want to tar every "punter" with the exact same brush. Remove this from your argument, accept that punters vary in countless ways and the labelling of such is actually unfortunate and then I agree that in far too many cases you are 100% correct (just not in 100% of cases or circumstances, nowhere near in fact).

Bunnylion: Angry? I'm not angry I assure you. Patronising? I didn't mean to sound patronising however, to effectively call every man who ever paid for sex a rapist is far more offensive than anything I could conjure up to insult anyone. It's a disgusting thing to even contemplate and it's also, wrong.

Have you finished yet, SF ?

Your defence of punters is of course heartwarming to witness, but ultimately of course, self serving

SG*

Truth hurts, sg?

In my opinion, any man who pays for a woman to have sex with him is absolute scum. HTH.

Written any good reviews on p u n t e r n e t lately? Are you on the invisible man project?

AnyFucker: You obviously don't understand that I am not defending anyone and so making 'patronising' comments is perhaps a little unwise.

runningforthebusinheels: Interesting stance on this. In many ways I think I must agree with you, certainly in a lot of cases I am aware of or have read about where men pay for sex, "absolute scum" is about right.

I also think that people who assume things and call judge and jury all by themselves are not only idiots, but they are living in the dark ages. This is why we no longer have the death sentence; innocent men hanged for murders they did not commit, innocent women drowned for 'witchcraft'. I hope that along with your moral stance on prostitution, you wouldn't condone such things in a modern progressive and fair society?

runningforthebusinheels: And in order to not be accused of avoiding the question:

No I am not quoted on the "invisible man project" and no I have never contributed anything, reports or anything else to the p u n t e r n e t website, why would I.

Yes, I absolutely want to go back to the dark ages, I would fully endorse the of the ducking stool and the burning of apothecaries as witches. I think that can certainly be plainly understood from what I typed. I would fully support the reintroduction hanging of innocent men too. Wherever possible.

That's obvious from my post isn't it? Not.

One aspect of a modern progressive society would mean not treating women as madonnas or whores. And not thinking it is acceptable to pay money to abuse some of them.

And I said all men who use prostitutes are scum, not just 'in a lot of cases.' So we are not agreed.

sghueks: I've been an active member on "punting boards"

Is why I could possibly imagine you might be one of the invisible men. They're out there - every single one of those reviews was written by someone.

SG I understand you only too well, pal

unfortunately

sg, I agree with a pp - you do sound angry. You sound angry that anyone would dare question or challenge the invisible men who choose to pay women for sex.

Ok so what about the women? Look at this, just one example of thousands out there www.adultwork.com/DivaliciousUK

A pornstar and escort, webcam, phone-sex woman with a feedback rating from 1833 (since 2007) of those who could be bothered to add feedback. She makes films, tours the country actively looking for new clients presumably when one area dries up, takes money to talk to men or be watched by them. So what's your view on the men who are paying to hear her (or a) voice talk dirty to them with no physical contact whatsoever, often not even in the same timezone. Who is the abuser and who the abused in that scenario?

What about the site itself?

What about women who are married and work as prostitutes without their husbands knowing what they do. Is that also the fault of men (or punters) who you can all "happily blame" in the convenient and deluded supply and demand equation?