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?

he is a man and it's what they do

I'm unfamiliar with CKD's posting history, but that is genuinely what I believed until relatively recently. I wouldn't say I was prurient (well, no more than anyone else) or bitter, though. I just thought it was a universal fact, like water flows downhill.

Garlic - I've read what you've posted over the years, and I'm pretty surprised that you thought until recently 'it's what they do', as if it was a broad sweep judgement on the whole sex. The obv question is 'so what changed your interpretation of how we behave re using prostitutes'?

Massive breakdown forced reappraisal. I've spent the last 10+ years learning about decent people & balanced relationships. Grotesque oversimplification, but it'll do! It wasn't a judgement in my eyes, merely a fact - I would judge people who abused their privilege, but my baseline for 'abused' was lower than it should be.

Cheers for asking :)

cheers Garlic. there did appear to be a disconnect, from what I understood about you, at least.

"Do some women, and I'm not just talking about third-wave feminists here, feel an unspoken relief at the idea of there being an underclass of 'sex-workers' soaking up men's darkness and frustrations so the legitimate, nice women only have to deal with socially acceptable side these men choose to show to the world. They don't really like that someone is doing it but mostly they're glad it's not them.

Your posts are very antagonistic, even if you don't mean them to be.."

I'm not sure why people are so up in arms about this observation. I have certainly come across women (not feminists) who do have an incredibly low opinion of men and are at the same time very male-identified - the sort of women who argue that "men have needs" and take it for granted that there is a sub-class of women who are there to serve those needs. (And call those of us who don't believe that about men, man-haters - oh the irony.)

I remember feelings shocked by the response of one of my children's teachers of all things, when we were discussing a news story that prostituted women were being shipped into South Africa for the Olympics, as if providing the required number of women for men to have sex in, was now part of the event management of this celebration of human achievement . This particular guardian of the education of the next generation of human beings, observed that she supposed it was a good thing as it would stop men raping women. And yes, she actually said that. As if the women who were being shipped in for men's use, are not women. I can just remember the feeling of dismay that this woman was teaching my kids tbh. But what she was expressing, isn't that unusual - it wasn't the first time I've heard the opinion voiced that we need prostitution because otherwise men would rape "normal" women. When Peter Sutcliffe started murdering women in Leeds, the Yorkshire Police didn't care for years, until he started murdering women who were not known prostitutes. That's not that long ago.

as if providing the required number of women for men to have sex in, was now part of the event management of this celebration of human achievement

This is the part that continues to shock me. I remember some angst over the large community of prostitutes that sprang up to service the London Olympic site construction workers. It seemed to be mainly about whether to get rid of them or prioritise some decent housing for them. Don't know what happened in the end, but they weren't shipped out. Probably weren't housed, either.

See, if we had criminalised using prostitutes, something could have been done about that. I appreciate the arguments are complex, but here's one example where it would have worked.

Basil, having thought about the reaction to this thread, I think the problem is not what Op is saying but how

She seems to forget where she is (in FWR) and is somewhat preaching to the converted (preaching being the operative word) and there is a certain attitude coming across that she is the first to point out the myriad issues around the sex industry. All "other women's" assessments of the situation being somewhat inferior to her own, of course.

I thought we afforded each other a certain modicum of respect/assumed a level of education in here and all her posts just looked goady to me for no reason at all I could see.

YY AskBasil. I was dismayed when someone who I consider a feminist expressed the view that many marriages have been saved because of prostitution

Well, Ask, I can see why people were so 'up in arms' about that observation, tbh. I think your comment is both specific to the teacher (as sad as it was) and 'choice' about what is being offered by the OP which I'm sure'ish was about 'nice comfortable Nigels and their wives', not trafficking issues.

iirc, Sutcliffe was killing women around 1981? We know that Yorks police was/is fundamentally wrecked (see Hillsborough re S Yorks not so many years later) so raising Sutcliffe as 'evidence' currently is a bit poor, imho.

From OP's OP:

[women don't want to] confront the fact that men they know enjoy dehumanising women who need money ... 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?

I've snipped the connecting sentences, because I don't think anyone here does see sex work as an empowering career choice.

Also, I don't think the majority of women are 'okay' with sex work for women. I agree that a high proportion of women are - wilfully or not - ignorant about how many men use prostitutes, and that it's almost certain they are close to men who do, some of them probably habitually.

Most women, I think, would see their partner's use of a prostitute primarily as cheating. If the betrayed woman's a mumsnetter, she will also factor in the dehumanising/objectifying/misogynistic aspect of it, but that would normally happen after the initial outrage at his cheating.

If she isn't a mumsnetter, I'd say the odds are pretty high that she and her friends will suppose he must have 'needs' she should have met, but failed, and simultaneously that the prostitute is some kind of worthless sub-human (skank).

So the answers to your questions are NEVER about prostitution per se, nor even about men's reasons for hiring women's bodies. They're about women's continued status in our society as servicers of men's 'needs'.

The popular mythology says men only use prostitutes when their 'needs' aren't being met. Their partners should meet them. In return, women get the promise of fidelity. When she fails to service adequately, he attends a sub-human service instead. This is jolly decent of him, for he might have had an affair with a human woman instead.

Thing is I can't speak for other women, I really don't know what they think or say. I don't have conversations about this stuff IRL and on MN I tend to hang around on FWR and maybe a bit of chat.

I really don't have a feel for whether lots of women think that men's dark needs (?!) are being slaked on some kind of sub-human underclass. It's not something that comes up really. Are we not also in danger of focussing on the women again? If a bunch of women think "I'm glad there are prostitutes because when my husband doesn't see a prostitute he comes home and forces me" or whatever then that's, what, they are thinking something wrong? If women are scared of what men will be like then that's not good is it? I don't really understand the thrust of the point past "Do we think that lots of women lack empathy / are pleased to divert horrible men onto these other women / think of prostitutes as sub-human?". It's not the women who are the problem here though is it? On the whole?

And FYI when I think about prostitution I think about it as a worldwide concern and am aware that it is through sheer luck that I am not in a bad situation somewhere and forced (whether literally or through circumstance). So there's no thinking prostitutes aren't real women here, it's the knowledge that as a woman (and previously as a girl) it's always somewhere that you could end up. I have been offered money for sex by strangers when I was young. I said no. If I had wanted some money / had some kind of problems that made me more risktaking or unstable / had some kind of addiction issues or an abusive partner or friends who did it then it might have been yes. It wouldn't be difficult would it, it's just a couple of steps away.

Maybe the views in chat are different but on here I'm not sure that women are in denial / othering etc.

"The popular mythology says men only use prostitutes when their 'needs' aren't being met. Their partners should meet them. In return, women get the promise of fidelity. When she fails to service adequately, he attends a sub-human service instead."

But then apparently further, if he can't pay for it then he's liable to rape someone.

Make of that what you will. Not hugely flattering towards men is it. If that's the general view out there IRL.

No, it totally isn't flattering towards men!

The thing I don't get is why decent men don't have a go at their whoring mates. Perhaps they do, and I just haven't heard of it?

that's, what, they are thinking something wrong?

I was intending to comment on the strength of patriarchal privilege in our own culture, not blame women for being influenced by it. I might not be writing very clearly, I'm poorly today.

It wouldn't be difficult would it - actually, I couldn't do it! In theory, there wasn't any reason why I shouldn't join my high-end hooker friends part-time. I was 'approved'. But I was talking to these perfectly normal blokes, trying to get around to the business, and I simply couldn't do it. I kept thinking they were just like someone's uncle, and looking at their wedding rings, imagining their families, and I loathed them for what they were doing.

The even more bizarre thing is that I have slept with married men a couple of times. I strongly disliked what they were doing but, because they were my friends and it was my controlled choice, it didn't stop me wanting to have sex with them.

I wouldn't do either scenario again, though - that was the old, patriarchally indoctrinated me.

Not you garlic just a general sort of thing on this thread.

Even if lots of women are ignoring / othering / avoiding etc that's still not the root of any of the problems with this stuff is it IYSWIM.

Not saying it's not worth talking about, this is an interesting thread. Just, noticed that yet again women's behaviour is becoming the focus.

Some of it may be magical thinking - same as women victim blaming with rape - oh well she had a short skirt / was walking in the wrong area after dark / I won't do that it won't happen to me. It happens to that sort of woman who does those things. This idea comes from the same place surely. Maybe.

Men buy sex because they want to and there are women selling it. I don't think it needs to be over thought, they get horny and need a release. I very much doubt that they aren't getting sex at home, i just think they want more than what's on offer.

That's the long and short of it Migsy.

I find thinking around all this other stuff very interesting too though.

And levels of prostitution vary between countries- finding out why that is assists with reducing it (which clearly is a good aim esp in countries with higher levels of children / desperate people / controlled people etc)

How high d'you want the levels to be? 1,400 children over six years, in a smallish city in England. Multiply that for all the other cities. And they are not 'just' raped, they're tortured and sometimes killed.

This is where your simplicity falls down. "Men buy children because they want to and there are people selling them." It's simply not true. There are not that many men who hanker for the rape, humiliation & torture of children. It's something to do with power, and with power games between men using human beings as pawns.

Consensual prostitution doesn't involve children. What happened in Rochdale has NOTHING to do with prostitution, that's abuse.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing Dogpan. I don't agree that my comment is specific to that teacher, as I said, it's not the first time I've heard it expressed and I don't think it's that uncommon as an attitude.

Are you arguing that the OP is wrong, that such an attitude is not very usual and that my example of the Sutcliffe case was specific to a crap police force at a certain point in their history? Because if so I disagree with you, I've just been watching the news about the Rochdale report and OMG that horrible attitude was alive and kicking and bang up to date and I don't think it's just because those police at that time were particularly awful and unconnected from the rest of their society - their attitudes come out of a generalised misogyny, they're not peculiar to Rochdale police any more than they were to the Yorkshire police in the eighties. I wish that wasn't the case, it would be great if it could be solved just by sorting out a crap police force. But police are drawn from general society and if they are full of racism, or misogyny or contempt for people with mental health problems or whatever other crap attitude, it is because they reflect the views of wider society, albeit the least enlightened part of that society by the looks of it. I just felt that the specific point about setting up an underclass of othered women, is a valid one which seemed to be dismissed almost out of hand. Although I take the point about the dangers of focusing on women's behaviour rather than men's - of course.

I just don't agree that men buy sex simply because they want a release, as if they don't know how to wank.

That is so simplistic and totally ignores power relations and the deep-rooted misogyny that enables the men who do "buy sex", to see other human beings as people they have the right to release themselves into.

If it were true, women would be "buying sex" at the same rate as men, unless you buy into the crap that we don't "have needs" like men do, we don't need a "release" like they do etc.

I find it incredibly contemptuous of men to talk about them as if they are some kind of dangerous explosive animals who need a release every now and then in case - what? They explode in the wrong place, in the wrong body, one they haven't bought or wooed the right to explode in?

And then I wonder why men are not outraged by this characterisation of them and why so few of them are willing to stand up and loudly refute this picture of them.

It's all a bit depressing really.

I'm not claiming that there are no decent men but rather that the majority of the men who use prostitutes are seen as respectable and decent. Is it any different from saying that most rapists aren't men hiding in bushes but people that are known to you and their respectability and normality is part of how they get away with it?

I'm sorry SolidGoldBrass thinks I am 'bitter' and 'prurient'. Wow, never heard that said about feminists before . I guess it's because I'm not pro-sex work and am gender-critical but really, you might as well say ugly, old hag in your post. It may be news for you but some of us aren't competing to be head handmaiden and the cool feminist all the boys like. Some of us actually want to be free.

Yeah of course they could have a wank but they don't have to. I'm not saying men are animals, im only going by what is said to me, unprompted by the men themselves. It's a convenience like fast food and they don't see the harm in it. They're not on a power trip, its just sex.