Prostitutes - Are Women in Denial About Who Uses Them?

[CKDexterHaven]

I've seen some threads on Mumsnet where a woman is concerned about her husband or partner going on an all-male trip to Thailand or Las Vegas or Prague or Amsterdam. As soon as someone raises the issue of prostitution they are shouted down and told they are jumping to conclusions. Is the issue of nice, middle-class husbands using prostitutes something to which women are willingly blind?

There are millions of prostituted women and girls in the world, and, of course, men and boys too. The slow advancements in women's lives in the developed world mean that women in their thousands are trafficked from East to Western Europe, from South to North America, from Africa to Southern Europe and from Asia to Australia and the rest of the world just to meet demand. It stands to reason that there must be a lot more clients than prostitutes. The ratio must be akin to hairdressers and their clients. So where are the men? And who are they?

I've read interviews with exited prostitutes who say most of their clients were 'normal', often married, middle-class men. I've heard prostitutes say the best time to work is not a Friday or Saturday night but first thing on a Monday morning when mid-life crisis guys who hate their jobs treat themselves before going back to work. But in my lifetime I've only ever met two men who've admitted to using prostitutes. One was very drunk and bragged to his friends, the other one was an 'edgy' mature student who thought it wasn't exploitative because the prostitute was older than him and, therefore, somehow in control of the situation. That's it, two men.

When I was growing up in the 80s and early 90s porn was sold in dodgy shops, stripping happened in sleazy men's clubs and prostitution was virtually invisible to anyone who didn't live in a red-light area. Even the most handmaideny of handmaidens I knew felt these things were degrading to men and women. Now that porn is a click away and lap-dancing clubs are in every town centre most women seem to have redefined these things as 'empowering' rather than confront the fact that men they know enjoy dehumanising women who need money. Prostitution is also a lot more visible and, although this has been redefined as an empowering career choice for women, women still seem sensitive to the idea of men they know using prostitutes. Why is this? Is it just the question of tangible cheating or are women not as ok with 'sex work' for women as they say they are?

No no one can read it because I'm in that private browse thingy now. My situation has changed slightly since I last posted and I the person who I said was my friend earlier has become my partner now so is a lot more supportive and sits in the flat to make sure I'm safe. I can't see me doing this forever but I've looked at access courses and they are expensive and since I'm not rolling in cash I'll have to wait a bit to actually pay for one.

Oh, good lord, Migsy, did that happen?! Stay safe, please!

Those ordinary run of the mill family guys are acting like entitled woman hating rapists. They aren't mutually exclusive.

This doesn't invalidate the point that many - most? - women think the men they know can't be "like that" because they want to believe in their equality. Therefore they characterise prostitute users as 'other' in some observable fashion - this allows them to maintain their conceit.

And, NAMALT. I need to keep repeating this, not from male appeasement but because I need it. I was raised to believe AMALT. Which is probably why so many felt free to share their secrets with me.

I agree Garlic, most women do see prostituted women as 'other' it makes them so much easier for them to hate I'm sorry if you thought I meant that AMALT, what I meant was that AM (who use prostitues) ALT. Whether they are the sweaty raincoat type or the high flying family man type, what unites them is that they are entitled woman hating rapists.

Migsy, if you're over 25 you will get a loan to do the access course, which is then written off when you start your degree. If you really do want to pursue it, I can point you in the right direction.

I agree Garlic, most women do see prostituted women as 'other' it makes them so much easier for them to hate.
I don't see prostitutes as 'other' and I certainly don't hate them and I bet most on this thread don't either.

I don't think the majority of women on this thread are 'most women' either, thanks. I think I've been pretty clear about that in the past as well. I don't hate prostituted women, I don't see them as other. I was answering Garlic's point.

I wasn't suggesting you did Capt, I was answering the statement that 'most' women see prostitutes as 'other' and hate them.

I'm not sure most women hate prostitutes but they damn sure see them as "other." What I always reiterate on these kinds of threads is that if you are ok with someone's daughter being a prostitute then that someone should be you. If you are not ok with your daughter being a prostitute then you are not ok with prostitution for anybody.

Curwen there is an argument in radical feminism that given the societal and biological inequalities between men and women, women's consent to sex is never truly valid as the power imbalance is too great. It is a valid philosophical point IMO but not strictly applicable to day to day life. It provides a clear-eyed way of viewing sex and consent that throws out all the grey area bullshit and that is helpful.

If a person's consent can be bought, then the concept of consent means nothing IMO and we might as well just throw out all the laws around rape. I do not want to live in a world where I have control over my bodily integrity only until a man finds a subtler way than violence to override it.

So there is no such thing as conditional consent, in any walk of life? E.g I will do x, if you will do y?

What's important is to look at what exactly you're consenting to. A prostitute is consenting to allow a man she doesn't know well to be alone in a room with her, in private, with no clothes on, allowing him to put his penis inside her and possibly ejaculate (with or without a condom) with the opportunity to hurt her physically, mentally and emotionally. She is also running the risk of becoming pregnant, of contracting an STI or of experiencing stigma shame and ostracisation if others find out what she is doing (given the very low status of prostitution). Essentially she is consenting to be put at great danger in exchange for money.
Take an analogous circumstance - a woman wants to do a show where she throws sharp knives at a man. She is very skilled but now wants to practice with a real live man, so pays a homeless man to be her guinea pig. There's no way he'd ever choose to have knives thrown at him, but he needs the money and so goes along with it, despite his reservations. She slips and the knife lands in the man's arm, wounding him. Would we accept her explanation that he consented?

Here's a similar one, cailin. A person grows up in a coal mining community. It is all they know. They understand the job is hazardous, potentially lethal. They take it anyway, because their options are extremely limited. Now, you can ban mining, because someone at some point will be killed. Or you can put laws and safety procedures in place to minimise risks, all the while knowing that there will be, at some point, death and injury. You could also look at army recruits from poor backgrounds.

How do you distinguish between consent and coercion in such cases?

It's easy to distinguish between consent and coercion. I allow and take part in sexual acts with men who pay me for my time. Rape is an act where NO consent is given, the person isn't willingly taking part in sex. I don't know how hard it is to understand?

Really good examples. There are a few ways to look at those sorts of issues. You could take the view that coal mining and being in the army are necessary pursuits that need to be done by someone in order to provide energy and security. Therefore, from a utilitarian point of view, the danger those workers are putting themselves in has a wider benefit for their community and therefore is justified. In comparison, being a prostitute only benefits individual men who could obtain sex elsewhere, therefore the danger the women put themselves in is not justified. This is too simplistic a view IMO and not one I hold.
You could also say that given that armies and coal mines are run by wealthy governments and companies whose main beneficiaries would never dream of entering a mine, ever, then the balance of power between the army higher-ups/soldiers and mine owner/miners is so skewed that in fact there is a form of coercion involved. Poor people who have no other option are being paid a pittance to put their lives at risk so that others can benefit from their labour. The army example is more complicated one here as there is an argument for the necessity of armed forces but IMO that necessity is often manufactured and the "need" for armed forces benefits many people who would never themselves go into battle. Anyway, that's a much larger argument. I would agree to an extent with this view, in the sense that if you value human life and expect human life to be put at risk for the good of others then the payment given to those humans should reflect the value and the risk, which in the case of miners, and often in the case of soldiers, it rarely does.
Many slaves, post-abolition, chose to stay with their owners because that was the only life they knew. That fact does not indicate that slavery is not really a bad thing, given that some actively choose it, it just indicates that the balance of power between slaves and their owners was so skewed that the slaves couldn't find a way out of the life that had been foisted upon them. The only way they saw to survive was to continue to be abused and disregarded because "free" though they were, the legacy of their slavery was an inability to conceive of a truly free life.

No he doesn't work, and I've raised the issue of me training to do something else but he's worried about how we'll manage. The are other issues going on that I won't talk about on here but they do affect me too.

I will have to leave though because all prostitutes have a shelf life and I do worry about what will happen then. I'm under 25 now so I'm more desirable, i look younger which is obviously popular to the clients, but what will happen as I age? If I didn't provide all the services I said I offered the guy wouldn't be happy as he's paid me upfront. I know some would stop and out of respect wouldn't push it but from past experience some would keep on asking and in some cases they carry on regardless, forced bareback is one example. Luckily they are in the minority.

Much for me to ponder there, cailin - thanks.

If I didn't provide all the services I said I offered the guy wouldn't be happy as he's paid me upfront. I know some would stop and out of respect wouldn't push it but from past experience some would keep on asking and in some cases they carry on regardless, forced bareback is one example.

Given what you said here, migsy, how can you argue that your consent is valid? Because the man has bought your consent he considers himself to own it, and therefore to have full access to your body regardless of your wishes. If you cannot withdraw your consent, then in fact your consent is meaningless. The exchange of money means that instead of consenting you are essentially giving up your right to consent, which in turn gives the men you mentioned who "carry on regardless" free rein to rape you, in their minds at least.

in some cases they carry on regardless - well, that is rape. Legally & everything. It's also analogous to the examples Cailin and Curwen discussed, because the client's putting your health and livelihood at risk. Would you report a client like this to the police, or is that a daft question? How about your partner, would he intervene?

Migsy: you say that the men are "nice". They may smile, shower, say please and thank you but they are not nice. Nice men do not use prostitutes.

I"m really sorry to hear that you are short of money and concerned that you won't manage if you do a course.

Why does your partner not become a prostitute as well rather than leaving the earning all to you? There is market in male prostitutes, either to escort women, or he could opt for gay males. Not a problem.

As he so clearly approves of his partner being a prostitute he cannot in all conscience object to becoming one himself.

The overall, ethical issue of prostitution is a tricky one because many women - and men - do trade sex, or sexual relationships, for financial advantage. "Marriage is legalised prostitution" can be true when a wife doesn't make her own money. It can be true, as well, that a woman who intends to have full sex with a new partner but holds off until he's bought her X number of dinners, theatre tickets or whatever, has prostituted herself. It's just that her going rate is 12 hours of company, 6 hours of conversation and £150 worth of food/entertainment.

It is thorny, and it does all come down to economic/social inequality.

The concept of marriage is legalised prostitution related to the situation (which still exists in some countries) where once a woman married she signed over all rights to her own property including her body. Her husband could have sex with her whenever he pleased, regardless of her wishes, and in return she would have financial security and the protection of an owner. That concept actually cuts to the heart of what we're talking about in relation of consent - the idea that the monetary exchange circumvents the woman's right to control her own body. Nowadays it is no longer legal for a man to rape his wife.

Some interesting posts. Though the OP, going by other threads, seems to have a particularly prurient and bitter mindset. S/he probably does think we should all interrogate every man we know about whether or not he has paid for sex, refuse to believe him if he says no, never, doesn't appeal to him and then announce to the whole neighbourhood that he has, because he is a man and it's what they do.

I'm not sure how helpful it is to put words into other posters mouths (so to speak) SGB.