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".

But Thistledew, it's such a poor question. It ignores everything I've already said by assuming that I would pay for sex. It then assumes that I'm a straight man paying for sex with a woman compared to receiving money for sodomy and then seeks to make a point from the attitudinal differences to those two scenarios.

What's your next point? Say I accept the point that degradation is inherrent in having sex that you doesn't enjoy - that's got eff-all to do with what I said in the preceding quote. It's like saying water's always wet when I've said that it doesn't always rain. Just... Oh, I give up. Besides, the football's on now.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten who you are.

glovender doesn't give a shit about whether men pay for sex or not, or whether men talk about paying for sex on public transport

he's admitted, it's putting down feminists and feeling like he's "cutting through the froth" with his concise, rational, reasoned arguments is pure entertainment

whether women are being subjected to violence in the real world is not his concern

No, read my question again. I asked you if you would have sex (not specifying the type), for the price you would consider it reasonable to pay. I didn't say "for the price that you pay".

I don't get the point you are trying to make with your water analogy. We are talking about having sex for money. Sex that women (and some men) would otherwise choose not to have. The only way I can make sense of your analogy is if you mean that some women enjoy having sex that they would otherwise choose not to have? The idea of the happy hooker? Can you explain how you see "I would rather not be doing this" squaring with "I am enjoying doing this"?

I am guessing that my later comment about having no idea what it is like to have sex that you don't enjoy holds very true. Toleration does not equate to not being in the situation of wanting it to stop as soon as possible.

"It then assumes that I'm a straight man paying for sex with a woman compared to receiving money for sodomy and then seeks to make a point from the attitudinal differences to those two scenarios. "

Well, yes.

What's the difference. There isn't one.

You're being penetrated by someone you don't want to be penetrated by, for cash. Your personal sexual preference is irrelevant, I don't understand why it is always brought up. The women do not fancy the men they are having sex with. They may not be straight. They certainly perform sex acts that they would rather not - market pressure has meant that women are offering "services" that they do not want to offer but they need to compete for business (BBC piece recently).

So. What is the difference? Men who post in defence of this industry are always very quick to say that for them to be fucked by a man for money is totally different to a woman being fucked by a man for money. Well it isn't, and the fact that they are desperate to say it is reveals just how horrifying they find the thought when it's them that would have to do it. So they say no no it's the the same. It is exactly the same. Although - a woman would have less chance against a man in it came to violence, so actually even in that situation the man (depending on relative builds etc) might have a nominal advantage.

"I've already said that it's nigh on impossible to tell whether you're raping someone or not."

No, really it isn't.

When a man tells you what he is, believe him

Right, scallops.

But hey - the football's on now. So he's leaving his academic "discussion" of violence against women (and it being casually and loudly discussed on the train) for a while.

that's us in our place, isn't it?

I've already said that it's nigh on impossible to tell whether you're raping someone or not.

Only if your scumbaggery is getting in your eyes.

I couldn't get past that first sentence of his post earlier. Managed to read the rest now. So he tells us what he is and that he wouldn't actually be prepared supply sex himself (at least I think that's what he said - I didn't quite follow the second sentence as it didn't seem obvious to me from the rest of his posts because he mainly avoided the question when asked. So I've deduced that by process of evasion). Then we are being unreasonable about taking that at face value.

Okaaaay.

If you can't tell when you are raping someone Glovender, don't have penetrative sex. Women will be grateful.

"I think the value male punters place on women generally as sexually autonomous beings is irrelevant to the argument..." Why on earth do you think that when it is key to the demand side of demand-supply chain? The fact that they don't care about women's autonomy and women are basically interchangeable vessels for them.

Again when men tell you what they are like, believe them.

Oh and if you are 'in' for trying to eliminate demand why not penalise the demand side of the chain especially as prostitution is a demand-led market, not supply led?

Half time, so I shall grace you with my presence again very briefly.

No 7DS, it's not wrong at all. Your interpretation is the one that suits your argument, but doesn't it work. Many men are heavily socialised to feel revulsion about gay sex. Added to which there isn't a natural orifice. This leads to quite a different kettle of fish all together. Imagine you're an actor and you're paid to do a sex scene. No difference whatsoever? Rubbish.

Which leads onto the other point and how ridiculous your attempts to take things out of context are scallops; I did not say you can't tell if someone's being raped full stop. I said that I agreed that a lot of prostitution is rape because of the nature of the sex trade. Some isn't, but there are plenty of good actors in the sex trade and many prostitutes will smile sweetly and practically beg you into the engagement. I take it no one here is a man that has happened to walk down the wrong street on occasion? But that's the problem isn't it? Your ideology is a collection of facts and theories put together after you've decided what the conclusion should be and not objective research from which a final understanding is drawn. This is just the extended meanderings of adolescent girls thinking the world wasn't fair and

Oh look. Football started again.

That was a short half time

It took him a long time to type with his big hairy hands, rufus.

I shall grace you with my presence again very briefly

Why don't you fuck off instead, rapey raper?

Out of interest. Why are you all engaging with a man who is obviously just taking the piss out of you all? You can hear his laughter at directing the discussion to his own selfish ends. He no more wants to discuss this in a reasonable fashion than he wants to be a prostitute.

I totally get the lurkers thing Buffy. And with the obvious trolls with their randomly generated names I think it's admirable. But Glovender is just taking the piss out of you all, and it's a shame to see you all waste your intellects on someone who does that.

I rather like to see the posters here deconstruct his pseudo-superior ramblings, puffins.

We all know what he is. He's just told us.

Fair point!

I have particularly enjoyed watching Buffy's rebuttals, as always.

Wow he's a really fucking nasty piece of work isn't he

Incredible how all the men who show up on threads in the feminism section to defend their "right" to buy women to fuck, show themselves up to be absolute bastards, isn't it.

But I mean, it's not surprising is it. Puffins - true. They wind people up though. We're not saints Plus as Buffy says, lurkers.

I mean they show themselves up at every turn don't they, can't help it. His response to my comments about men selling sex to men being no different from women selling sex to men goes to beautifully prove the point I was making. They find the thought utterly abhorrent and react with disgust at the idea. But for women doing the same thing - that's totally different and utterly fine. Hypocritical arseholes to a man.

The stuff about "This is just the extended meanderings of adolescent girls thinking the world wasn't fair and"...

He has no idea who any of us are, what our experiences are.

It's interesting that when a woman empathises with someone in the situation of working in prostitution, and expresses concern, she is told that is childish and irrelevant. When he is asked to empathise with someone in that situation, in exactly the same way, he simply says NO I WILL NOT DO THAT. And of course his opinion is right. He, the person who refuses to imagine themselves in that situation, gets to state how women who are actually in that position feel? I don't think so.

Nasty piece of work, isn't he. Been on the boards for a while as well I think.

I haven't taken it out of context Glovender. That's what you said. I didn't realise you were just talking about these mythical deceived punters cuckholded by the sirens on the street. You believe that is possible. You believe that men cannot tell when they are raping someone. So ergo you may not be able to tell when you are raping someone.

Again, I find it interesting. Despite saying that I thought that the majority of purchased sex was rape and am clearly against prostituition, it was only Buffy that acknowledged that I'd said this. The rest claim I'm justifying 'men's right to purchase women' and even call me a rapey raper. But, apparently it's me that's the bigoted one that's not bothering to discuss the issue properly. Also, disagreeing with people on the internet makes me a misogynist. It's not you narrow collection of extremists that I disagree with, no. In fact I hate all women. It's risible.

So, that's why I have such a poor opinion of the majority of posters on this forum... Sure, I'm just one dissenting voice and you don't - and shouldn't -care what I think. But the majority of people don't agree with feminists do they? Men, women, teenage girls... Do you feel that you're winning? You shouldn't. Perhaps you should reflect on that a bit more and not just say 'patriarchy innit'.