The greens and prostitutes

[IceBeing]

Be gentle as I am new to thinking about this.

I found the Natalie Bennett's comments on decriminalising prostitution pretty persuasive - what am I missing?

She basically said that sex workers would like this policy (having contributed to it) and that research from other countries indicated it was the way forward.

I think there are several elements at play in why men pay for sex. Fundamentally it's a sexual drive fuelling it. However following on from that it is more complex.

Perhaps for some it is about power (either consciously or unconsciously). Yet still for others they probably think as little about the individual sex worker and their circumstances as possible (and I suspect may well give the endeavour a second thought if they did!).

If you think about the glamorous smoke and mirrors that surround the whole thing this illusion is essential. We have talked about the happy hooker narrative being dominant, but I think this has to be so lest people look at the potential realities to bring it all crashing down.

I wouldn't like to deny that women like kim exist and engage and even enjoy aspects of the job, but as with anything that is marketed as indeed the sex industry is I assume 98% is bullshit just in general principle.

I am coming round to thinking that the legalisation vs criminisation debate is becoming a bit of a red herring. Male attitudes towards sex need analysis and scrutiny. The law as it stands needs to be used properly and prostituted women need to be taken seriously.

N.B. My red herring point isn't meant as a challenge to those who back the criminalisation solution. In fact I respect the strength of the ethical position, I more mean that it often gets bogged down in mires of libertarianism, and the data isn't strong enough for us to reach consensus on it.

So why would pimps go to the trouble of trafficking women if there were enough women who wanted to do it voluntarily? This is just as true in somewhere like Germany where it's legal as here in the UK. It doesn't make business sense, and traffickers and pimps are very good businessmen. The fact that they continue to go to all the effort of trafficking reveals that there just aren't enough women who are prepared to go into prostitution without being coerced.

You make a good point. But, there is an alternate take on this: there may not be anything like the scale of trafficking you think there is. As I said a couple of days ago, plenty of women from poor countries want to go work in richer countries, and they are willing to do so through someone who can facilitate it. There are American and British women who go to the Middle East to work, either independently or through agencies, and there are women from Eastern Europe who come here. In either case, relying on someone to facilitate it does put the woman in a vulnerable position and they can be taken advantage of. However, the fact remains that many of these women knowingly and willingly go abroad to work as prostitutes.

There are statistics bandied about regarding trafficking in the sense of coercion - not the same thing as economic migration - but it appears that very few cases have actually been proven/prosecuted. This is not to say it doesn't happen, but the "slavery" idea is probably not the norm.

Devel - I agree - I don't think Nordic or NZ models work and they are a waste of time and goodwill. I do think challenging men about the fact they are more likely to kill their partners and the social structure of how men view women are the only things that could potentially lead to abolition of prostitution without the need for criminalising or enforcement.

I had read stories while working in Vietnam about girls who had paid what they thought were employment agencies to get jobs in the west/other parts of Asia, ending up trafficked.

Also there are people paying these gangs to get them to countries and then end up held hostage while they 'pay back' their fee.

So it works out for the gangs either way, we only hear about it when one of them escapes.

This thread is fast-moving and now I can't find the post where someone said that while I describe many of my clients as lovely, they are not men they would want around them or their children.

Well, I would have to say: they already are. I don't mean to say that your husband or brother or whomever is seeing prostitutes. I am only saying that these men are literally indistinguishable from anyone else. When I say that the men I see are not abusive, but are actually quite normal and often attractive and kind, I want to make it clear that I am not deluded. I don't inhabit some netherworld where I no longer know what normal looks like. I operate in the same world you do and encounter people all over the place and my clients are in no way different from the guy at the Post Office or my children's head teacher or my next door neighbour.

And, when I say that they are not abusive, I mean that I am in a position to judge pretty accurately what their attitudes are towards sex and towards me as a person. I have encountered men who have bad attitudes and it's pretty obvious. The norm, however, is a regular person - with all the regular set of virtues and flaws as any human. They express dismay and even contrition if they ever think they have offended me. (For example, a man might stick his tongue in my ear and I will let him know I don't like it. He will look abashed and apologise.) They are genuinely keen to engage in sex with someone who is happy to be there.

The Nordic model isn't perfect, but, it has changed attitudes toward men who use prostitutes. They are now seen as the human inadequates they are.

KimCar those statistics are highly questionable. We had a punter on here last year who was king of C&P'ing surveys. The ones he posted on trafficking excluded women who were "in love" with their pimps and women who "chose" to be transported to the UK for prostitution because their Hs had been killed in war zones and life was untenable for a single woman in their home country. One was a doctor. These were put into the category of economic migrants, not trafficked women.

As to why men use prostitutes, based on the Invisible Men project, the punters who have been on here and various newspaper, TV and radio interviews with punters I've seen over the last few years, I'd say the common denominator is entitlement combined with a wilfull blindness to the sexuality or well-being of the woman. In particular, it's not that they need sex, it's that they want a type of sex they can't get elsewhere. It might be a young, pretty woman, a porn sex experience or a racialised exotic experience. In each case, what they are buying is the ability not to care if the woman is enjoying herself. Even the even more grim sounding girl-friend experience, of watching a movie with a glass of wine or something before sex, the punters don't want a real GF experience but an idealised one where the woman centres the man. It's all about entitlement and I don't want to encounter men who think these things about women have been given the legitimacy of legalisation or decriminalisation.

"there may not be anything like the scale of trafficking you think there is"

Well from the article Annie Lennox did in the guardian over the weekend: "Between 700,000 and 4 million girls and women are sold into prostitution each year."

Even taking the lower figure I'd say that was pretty substantial. That is worldwide btw before anyone dies of shock. But it is an annual figure.

"In each case, what they are buying is the ability not to care if the woman is enjoying herself.". Yes yes yes.

The ones he posted on trafficking excluded women who were "in love" with their pimps and women who "chose" to be transported to the UK for prostitution because their Hs had been killed in war zones and life was untenable for a single woman in their home country. One was a doctor. These were put into the category of economic migrants, not trafficked women.

It is the case that women who choose to come to a richer country from a much poorer one are economic migrants. They are not slaves (although their vulnerability may put them in positions of being abused, and this is true of all economic migrants in unskilled labour.) That is simply the truth. How happy they are to do so is another matter and I would say that the underlying problem is one of economic or social issues in their home countries.

As for what the men want, I feel that they are not wrong to want a simple encounter with a woman who centres her attention on his pleasure. I have many clients who want to lie back with their hands behind their head and get a blow job and I have absolutely no problem with that. How is that different than wanting a massage? It is not "abusive" to want a simple sexual interaction. It is abusive when one party does not have the power and autonomy control their terms.

If you look at the Relationships board, you will read numberless tales of misery born out of romantic love and the institution of marriage. I think one could argue that all sexual relationships would be better if they were temporary and based on the exchange of money. I don't actually feel that way, but I want to make the point that opponents of prostitution are usually wedded to a particular idea of what sexual relations ought to be for everyone.

I want to make the point that opponents of prostitution are usually wedded to a particular idea of what sexual relations ought to be for everyone

I am an abolitionist. Please, tell me what I believe about sexual relations. I am agog.

Sorry, that line makes me really very cross and always gets trotted out eventually. As does the troll's one about male conservatism.

Yes Kim - I know what you mean. I have opted out of having a relationship as I haven't yet found a man who makes me happy. I clearly must have high expectations but I also just can't be bothered with the hassle any more. I don't think anyone would dispute that these men seem nice on the surface, but as I said any man who can pay a woman to service them like a car isn't my idea of someone I'd want in my house. I'm not naive and am sure some of the men I know have used prostitutes. I have chosen not to be caught up in the worry of that and gone solo with dd. I have been cheated on in the past and am not convinced I could go through another emotional turmoil, especially if it just boiled down to him saying "well, I could so I did." You can try to take the emotions out of what you do, and I understand why you need to, but for the rest of us we have to draw a line and hope that the men we love, or could love, may actually be who they are appearing to be. People have to trust, no matter how misguided that may seem to a prostitute.

I don't know what lines get trotted out, as I don't spend much time engaged in these sorts of debates. It is not a line on my part, it is what I think.

I have seen comments in this discussion to the effect of what sex ought to be. That there must be lust or attraction on the part of both parties, that it would make more sense to just have a wank, etc. Although not expressed in this discussion, there are of course religious moral arguments against prostitution because of religious views of what sex out to be and it what context it should take place.

I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to have superficial sex with a stranger in which one party gets paid money and in exchange the other gets to focus entirely on what they want. Some want to lie back and get oral sex and some want to make the prostitute orgasm, but either way they are paying for what they want. So long as the other prostitute is happy with the arrangement, then I don't think there is any problem with that at all.

The only problem, as I see it, is how does anyone know for sure that the prostitute is truly happy? That is an issue I think deserves attention and I don't think either side do anyone any favours when they throw around flimsy statistics or try to brush them aside. I don't think that there are no abused and unhappy hookers but I also don't think that they are the norm.

I think a particular idea of human sexual interaction that includes agency & choice that rests on a foundation that does not tolerate people having their psyches fractured is a good benchmark. Blue sky utopian thinking I know!

Lion I know plenty of prostitutes who have arrived at the same conclusion about men and relationships. Since we truly believe that these men are indistinguishable from any other man, quite a few have come to feel that no man can be trusted to remain monogamous for life. For some, this is expressed in terms of jaded disillusionment of the "Now I know that all men are lying cheaters" variety while others are more "Now I see that monogamy is not really the norm for men."

I don't hold either of those views, but I definitely don't think I can know for sure whether or not a given man would purchase sex.

women who choose to come to a richer country from a much poorer one are economic migrants. They are not slaves

No-one said they were slaves. Trafficking is not about slavery. It's too easy to drop people into an "economic migrant" bucket and turn away from the exploitation of victims of abuse, war zones or extreme poverty for the sake of men's orgasms.

I want to make the point that opponents of prostitution are usually wedded to a particular idea of what sexual relations ought to be for everyone.

This is simply an attack. You've no reason to think this way, especially given that people opposed to prostitution come from a wide variety of backgrounds, some from a religious background and some lesbians or radical feminists. You simply can't make a sweeping statement like that and be taken seriously.

"It is the case that women who choose to come to a richer country from a much poorer one are economic migrants. They are not slaves (although their vulnerability may put them in positions of being abused, and this is true of all economic migrants in unskilled labour.) That is simply the truth. How happy they are to do so is another matter and I would say that the underlying problem is one of economic or social issues in their home countries." Choice? What is choice in that context. In the example one woman was a doctor. That is not unskilled.

I don't necessarily thing the underlying problem is one of economic or social issues in their home countries, although that is clearly a significant problem. The underlying problems are that women are treated as commodities (and that happens no matter with economic wealth of the country) and the barriers to entry within some countries. The Haves and the Have Nots. The Haves want it to remain that way. You have to be worthy enough to join them.

This is simply an attack. You've no reason to think this way, especially given that people opposed to prostitution come from a wide variety of backgrounds, some from a religious background and some lesbians or radical feminists. You simply can't make a sweeping statement like that and be taken seriously.

No, it is not an attack. It is simply what I believe and I expressed it in a non-hostile way. Nor do I think that there is only one POV for all abolitionists. A religious objection would be different from a radical feminist objection. But, what I am hearing in this thread are repeated statements along the lines of "sex shouldn't be this or that."

I think we can all agree that sex shouldn't be one person abusing another. However, I do not think that paying someone to perform sex act is abusive in and of itself. There are definitely frequent intersections between sex, money, and abuse and so prostitution can involve abuse.

I don't necessarily thing the underlying problem is one of economic or social issues in their home countries, although that is clearly a significant problem. The underlying problems are that women are treated as commodities (and that happens no matter with economic wealth of the country) and the barriers to entry within some countries. The Haves and the Have Nots. The Haves want it to remain that way. You have to be worthy enough to join them.

Vulnerable human being are often treated as commodities, in and out of the sex industry. The underlying problems are socioeconomic in all cases, whether we are talking about prawns or prostitutes.

No the underlying problems are the attitudes of those with the power.

KimCar Tue 10-Mar-15 12:34:47 Lion I know plenty of prostitutes who have arrived at the same conclusion about men and relationships. Since we truly believe that these men are indistinguishable from any other man, quite a few have come to feel that no man can be trusted to remain monogamous for life

I have heard the same for some lapdancers that after seeing that side of men has jaded it all.

I don't think women are particularly more signed up to monogamy and marriage as institutions than men.

I personally think that anyone who wants to have sex with anyone else can and should - as long as they want to too....and as long as there is no power imbalance created by the exchange of money.

If I would only sleep with someone if they also chuck in money then I don't really want to sleep with them....and sooner or later that will bite you.

So erm FREE SEX then....

I think that the making of sex into a precious/shameful/all or nothing kind of deal is a horrible distortion of what it really means to humans. It ends up built up into something it isn't. Like when women seem happy for the husbands to ignore them, dump on them, treat them like shit, have emotional affairs etc. but then actual leave them because they had PIV sex with someone else.

I personally would care a whole lot more about an emotional affair than a bit of sex on the side(NB: as long as it was truly consented to - would totally not be cool with DH buying sex.)