Just got on a train...

[Vivacia]

...sat actions from a table of four men discussing paying for sex. I couldn't believe my ears at first, wasn't really listening and then it became clear.
Finished with, "the only time I paid for It is the day I got married".

It's a curious moral stance we have - "It's ok for me to do what ever I want to you, provided I give you enough money".

Why is it not turned back on the punter "If you can't get someone to do it for free, why does money make it alright to do?"

I suppose it stems from some very circular reasoning "I may be expecting someone to do this thing I know they wouldn't do for free, but they are willing to do it for money. The fact that they are willing to be 'bought' must mean that they are less deserving of dignity than someone who will not be bought. Because they are willing to be bought, they can be treated with less dignity. Because they are willing to be treated with less dignity, it must be alright for me to treat them with less dignity".

And no. There is no dignity in having sex that you do not enjoy.

If only we could get the punters to see that there is neither any dignity in having sex with someone who is not enjoying it. Would they then see how cheaply they price their own dignity?

Glovender - what's the price of your arse?

This was my thought. Three men want you on your knees 'round the back of the pub giving them blow jobs during half time. £20 seem alright.

Must be time for the Behold a man has arrived to share his manly opinion by now.

Surely his price is exactly what he would pay, or would think it reasonable to pay?

I mean, because otherwise he would be thinking that he was 'worth more' than the women that he would pay to fuck him? And that would either be extremely arrogant, or an acknowledgement that there are other forces in play which makes them more susceptible to economic exploitation, would it not?

News flash!

Patriarchy hurts men too!

Men exploit prostituted males. They are usually young and in my experience, vulnerable runaways in the main. They are also almost exclusively straight. They tend to do it to pay for those little luxuries such as a roof over their heads and end up doing it to find the drug/alcohol habit they've started in order to survive.

It's interesting isn't it? Well, it is to me. Two fairly obvious points and neither dealt with honestly. You're all intelligent people, so why such evasive barracking? If you believe in your stance, then you should be able to provide square answers, surely and not hide behind obfuscation and the usual (weak and hypocritical imo) "mansplainer" cat calls.

1. The majority of people have a price. No £20 isn't alright for me personally, but no, it wouldn't need to be millions at a point of extreme desparation. If you need extremes to prove your point, then your point isn't valid. Most people have a price and, for some people, that amount is at a level other people are willing to pay. Supply and demand.

2. Yes, the industry is riddled with exploitation. This is an important point or a crucial point depending on who much semantics you want to get into. Does that make prostituition exploitation or does it mean that the industry - in its current format is exploitative? That's a genuine question that, amongst a general audience (ie not you lot) would have divided views. What I am certain of, however, is that you could criminalise it all until the cows come home, but the exploitation would not stop and, potentially get even worse. And for the Chaotic Capstan, the existence of one factor does not disprove other factors. That's pretty basic stuff tbh. Did you not see the Josh Brandon interviews recently?

if we're all so ridiculous glovender, why do you keep coming back? isn't it just a waste of your time and energy trying to explain this all to us?

Come on Glove - don't be coy. How much would you pay to have sex with someone who didn't actually want to have sex with you, and would you be willing to have sex with someone you didn't want to have sex with for the same amount?

If not, why not?

"you lot"

If you don't want to be accused of mansplaining, then don't mansplain.

glovender doesn't really want to debate topic in question (and absolutely no response on the OP's original topic anyway)

a quick search of glovender's posts suggests that their position is that they see more clearly than everyone here, and they come here to cut through the frothing, the confirmation bias, the hypocrisy, the weak arguments

what a hero

the aim is to put down posters in this section, not to actually debate the points

I once nursed a woman who was at death's door (literally. She died a few weeks later from liver disease) who was taken off the ward by her pimp so she could go and earn him a few quid. She could barely stand up (but then, she didn't really need to). She'd been abused as a child, been impregnated 4 times by punters (the children had been taken away) and was a drug addict and alcoholic. Tell me again how she had options? Tell me about how she gave her consent?

So, what do you think about men holding forth in a derogatory way about prostituted women and comparing their wives poorly to those women?

Ok with you?

And are you aware that your point to, I assume, me, made no sense?

i should correct myself

"the aim is to put down posters in this section, not to actually debate the points"

the aim is to put down posters in this section, not to actually contribute to the discussion

At least he admits that having sex with him is as much fun as cleaning a toilet.

Sorry. That was in reference to our punter friend who has scarpered. This thread was only one page long when I last checked it

I've already said that it's nigh on impossible to tell whether you're raping someone or not. The likelihood of my participation in the supply part of the market is therefore obvious - well unless of course you think I'm a potential rapist.... Oh! Of course! Duh! Obviously you think I' a potential rapist; you're feminists.

Buffy:

1. I'm not defending the industry. I'm talking about the feminist response to the question of prostitution.

2. Obviously not. Do you really think I'm likely to say yes? So why ask?

3. In an ideal world we could eliminate demand; not going to happen, but here's to trying - I'm in. However, let's assume that we are a long way from making significant gains in this regard. The harder it is to meet that demand, the more unscrupulous the suppliers. Do you disagree?

4. The dynamic above. Same as drugs in that regard. This is my problem with the feminist response that suggests that the exploitation side of the trade is a crucial part of men's participation, as if men are actually after the degradation and coercion to feed their maniac egos. I don't doubt that that's true of a very small minority, but to apply it as a general rule is, to me at least, misguided.

I think the value male punters place on women generally as sexually autonomous beings is irrelevant to the argument, but rather a means of rearranging the argument to suit a feminist perspective. They may be using that autonomy to become a prostitute. Or do you mean in a relative way - in which case, do you think of your binmen as lesser human beings than your lawyer? Hopefully not. Furthermore, the exchange of money for sex doesn't require female involvement in many cases, so where does that leave your question? Perhaps you think all gay men all suffer from self-loathing.

Why would an exchange not be legitimate if both parties are satisfied with the consideration? Only if wider society had deemed it illegal - well, that's law, not morality.

Good question Petula; no, there is no point attempting to discuss anything with you and hope that your opinions may be influenced in any diretion other than down further partisan lines. That would be a fool's errand. So the answer is obvious and it's the same reason you're here: it's an alternative to Coronation Street.

"as compared to the capitalist argument that the presence of a mutually agreed upon exchange makes the exchange relationship legitimate"

Very well put, Buffy.

'Debating' with people like Glove always reminds me of how incensed I was when I had to read Francis Fukyuama's essay "The End of History" as a politics undergraduate. Perhaps in some ways he is right, and that capitalist socio-economics is now so ingrained that many people (such as Glove) just see any debate or theory that contradicts such a model as being "wrong", without stopping to question whether such a capitalistic morality is the best, or indeed the only one. We have these sorts 'debates' time and time again on this board, but they are only half debates, because the arguments in favour of maintaining the status quo only ever start from the point that the status quo is the best we can do, and is therefore 'right'.

The rest of you lovely people who are able and willing to go back and question whether the status quo should be the starting point still allow me to hold out hope that Fukuyama was wrong.

I'll cheerfully put CC down. The sort of school bully that accuses everyone else of their own faults. Kind of funny really. Or sad.

"This is my problem with the feminist response that suggests that the exploitation side of the trade is a crucial part of men's participation, as if men are actually after the degradation and coercion to feed their maniac egos"

Degradation is inherent in having sex that you don't enjoy.

You haven't answered my question about whether you would have sex for the same sum that you consider to be a reasonable payment for sex, and if not, why not? What does that say about your ideas of the 'value' of people who are paid for sexual exploitation?

But, in that vein, and in light of Glovender's points, I'm always slightly boggled by punters who compare prostitution to poorly remunerated domestic work like cleaning (aside from the fact that it shows they obviously consider both sex and cleaning to be domestic shit work that women perform for the benefit of men).

Because they are admitting that the women they are paying for sex hate, or at the very least barely tolerate, having sex with them. Yet they enjoy these sexual experiences very much. With a partner for whom the encounter is, by their own admission, a nasty and/or boring experience to be endured.

I would never want to have sex with someone who was gritting their teeth throughout, much like I have to grit my teeth and force myself to scrub the toilet or mop the kitchen floor. Yet punters are fine with this and even think it constitutes an argument in favour of prostitution.

Very clever. Veiled threats of violence.

Cue - "you are over reacting, I didn't mean it that way"

Donkey - I would think it likely that the majority of men, and the majority of punters, have never had sex that they truly did not enjoy. The sort of sex that you just hope will end soon but for XYZ reason you can't call a halt to.

If they truly have, and know what it feels like, but still get a kick out of putting another person through that experience - well, that speaks volumes.