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.

Kim, while I understand your view that the men you see are indistinguishable from other men, that doesn't mean that there aren't differences between them. I would assert that the very fact they are comfortable paying for sex makes them different from other men. Unless you're suggesting that all men use prostitutes / want to use prostitutes?

No, I don't think that all men want to use prostitutes. But I would say that wanting to or not makes no real difference in their overall makeup as a person. I would say that it's about as significant to how kind or decent they are as having an interest in military history. Speaking of the men I see, I believe they are no more or less likely to hit someone, embezzle funds, donate to charity, love animals, or cheat on their taxes.

Deconstructing sex itself is tremendously challenging, and of course people are going to default to what makes sense for them in the privacy of their own head/bedroom.

There is a bizarre cycle of objectification going on, and I appreciate this may sound counterintuitive next to the concept of patriarchy but we are all objectified to a greater or lesser extent (that is both men and women are). It is potentially true to say in the transaction of sex for cash the prostitute is physically objectified by the punter, but so too the punter is objectified by the prostitute as being little more than a sex operated walking atm machine.

Thus stands a microcosm of traditional male/female interactions (if you like as overseen by the patriarchy). On reflection it seems as if the work feminism is doing needs to be matched by similar work on the masculine side of the coin. Obviously it can be taken as read that the status quo is invested in keeping women materially impoverished, as we as a society equate money as power, and also neatly illustrates why we have feminism as when you look at it in those terms the status quo is blatantly unfair.

However I at least would argue that men who have gone so far down that road are indisputably damaged. Note I am not about absolving personal responsibility here I am merely trying to trace back where this goes batshit screwy. They go on to either wilfully harm women who work as prostitutes or simply not really care enough wether they do or not.

I cannot accept this as a natural state as by default humanity does not generally like to cause suffering and misery, soldiers have to be trained to other enemy combatants, and the holocaust gas chambers had to be implemented in part thanks to the psychological toll shooting scores of unarmed people had on the people tasked with doing it.

I don't think sex is an inherent negative or moral sin either, and so I struggle to see sex for money as inherently troubling either, but outside the laboratory of my mind it quite clearly is a negative for too many people, and thus something must be done about it.

I probably shouldn't post this as I have no idea where I am going with this I need to think on it some more, either that or I may just have flawed thinking somewhere.

If sex is just a social interaction like any other, no big deal, no emotional importance, no intimacy, wham bam thank you ma'am... then surely rape is no big deal either?

e.g. having a conversation with someone is a social interaction that can have varying levels of emotional significance and can be commodified since it is expected in various jobs. It's not very nice to have conversations with people when you really don't want to - small talk is despicable, as is talking to people you really don't like. But no one comes away from an unwanted conversation with PTSD, as routinely happens with women who have had unwanted sex. Does this not tell us that sex is different from other social interactions? And does claiming otherwise not belittle the suffering of people who have been raped?

Similarly. the sexual exchange that Kim describes in which one partner "gets to focus entirely on what they want" in exchange for money - surely the logical extension of that way of thinking is rape? If there's no problem with one person focusing entirely on their pleasure and not caring about the pleasure of their partner, what's the stop a person who feels that way from ignoring their partner's pleasure entirely?

It all seems to be part of the same mindset - sex is just an exchange, sexual pleasure is a bonus but hardly a requirement, sex work is just like any other type of work, NO BIG DEAL.

This was the mindset of the man who raped one of my friends while she was unconscious - he just couldn't understand why she was upset about it and in fact said "but it was just sex!"

Rapists also come from all walks of life...their only defining characteristic is that they have committed rape.

That doesn't make them the same as people who haven't committed rape though....I would argue they are very different from people who haven't committed rape.

The same applies to buying sex. I personally believe that it is impossible to buy consent with money. If money HAS to change hands for the woman to consent then she hasn't actually consented. I would therefore think of a man who buys sex as having a very different concept around consent to the one held by myself and lots of other men.

Just because such men may have many other features in common with men who don't believe consent can be bought, doesn't mean they are the same.

If sex is just a social interaction like any other, no big deal, no emotional importance, no intimacy, wham bam thank you ma'am... then surely rape is no big deal either?

Well... no. Sex can be a emotionless social interaction or it can be a deep, spiritual bonding between people who are in love. Rape is always an act of violence and an attack on one's autonomy and bodily integrity.

Similarly. the sexual exchange that Kim describes in which one partner "gets to focus entirely on what they want" in exchange for money - surely the logical extension of that way of thinking is rape? If there's no problem with one person focusing entirely on their pleasure and not caring about the pleasure of their partner, what's the stop a person who feels that way from ignoring their partner's pleasure entirely?

You can focus entirely on your own pleasure without it being to the detriment of another person's happiness. If your idea of pleasure is to violently exert dominance over another person against your will, then that certainly is rape. But to sit back and enjoy sex without any emotional strings or expectations other than paying cash is really no different than getting a pedicure, assuming the person providing the service feels adequately compensated.

The same applies to buying sex. I personally believe that it is impossible to buy consent with money. If money HAS to change hands for the woman to consent then she hasn't actually consented. I would therefore think of a man who buys sex as having a very different concept around consent to the one held by myself and lots of other men.

But, I feel perfectly confident that I am consenting. I also feel free to withdraw consent at any time. While you (general you, not specific you) may say that I am actually not consenting, then why do I not feel bad and/or what does consent really mean? If I engage in an interaction and feel happy about it, what does that mean?

But rape isn't always violent, in that it doesn't always include force or pain, as in the case of my friend who was raped while unconscious. Rape is unwanted sex.

Many rapists don't think what they're doing is rape. Their image of rape is of shadowy men in dark alleys, screams and knives and so on, but most rape isn't like that at all. The common factor is a total lack of concern for the feelings and pleasure of the sexual partner, and the idea that mutual pleasure is not necessary in a sexual exchange feeds into that.

To be clear - I'm not saying that prostitution is rape, only that it's part of a cultural attitude towards sex that in some cases leads to rape, i.e. a rape culture.

As a man, I am finding this thread incredibly interesting.

I've only ever known a male escort, he earn earnt good money and was never damaged by it.

Which leads me onto male prostitution. Would people be comfortable with a law that made female prostitution illegal but not male. So women could buy sex with men but not the other way around.

I remember a female friend of mine musing back when we were teenagers over the significance of the fact that women physically take a part of a person inside of us when we have sex whereas when men have sex they are merely using a part of their body which is fairly external. She wondered if it was why women are often thought to be more emotional around the issue of sex, are often touched or affected more deeply by it, and why men appear often to shrug it off as though it is no more significant than (to use the example) a conversation.

If we think about parallels it does follow. Accepting something into your body is often uncomfortable even if it does not physically hurt. Many people have a fear of the dentist, most men dislike the idea of prostate exams, internal examinations for women are often more uncomfortable emotionally than physically. The idea of being forced to have a dental exam or internal exam when you don't want one is horrible.

But to take the example of a pedicure or manicure, even if you didn't really want it, it wouldn't be that bad, and you wouldn't be frightened. You could probably endure it unless you had some kind of phobia which I think would be quite rare. We are very used to the idea of using our hands and even to an extent feet to explore new situations and would think nothing of using our hands or feet to do something we don't particularly want to do. I mean, I don't have a penis and so I can't say yep it's exactly the same, but it does seem that using an external body part has to be less significant, emotionally, than accepting something into your body.

Mengog, I personally wouldn't be comfortable with it. Until we (as a society) have a very clear understanding of consent, I do not want to endorse any situation where consent can be bought or paid for. I think the idea of "freely given" consent is far to important to let go of.

Mengog oh no I'd absolutely want to apply the Nordic model to both. Women buying sex is astonishingly rare - most male escorts sell sex to gay men, often much older and richer than them so there's a power imbalance, so the same issues apply.

And that's an interesting idea Bertie

I agree that rape is any non-consensual sex where both parties are not consciously agreeing to participate. I thought we were discussing the sexual interactions I have (awake, sober, verbally agreeing, etc) and their similarities to rape. Now I understand a bit more where you are coming from.

I am not sure what relationship, if any, what I do has to a rape culture. I certainly don't believe that a man who can't purchase sex will rape. I don't think that I am some sort of valve relieving the pressure of their brute urges or anything like that. If there is anything I am standing in for, I think it is extramarital affairs. I do hear a lot of men saying that they see visiting a prostitute as a very different thing than having an affair. They wish to have sex with someone other than their wife (perhaps because they are no longer having sex with their wives) but they feel an affair would be complicated and possibly disastrous.

I have no reason to believe that the men who see me feel entitled to women's bodies at their own whim. They may feel it's acceptable to purchase access to my body, but they generally assume that the money means there need not be any other obligations on their part.

However, I think you are more concerned that the institution of prostitution, especially when it is openly tolerated or when legalisation means the State is profiting from it, may engender a belief that they have the right to access any woman's body. There are many things for sale that normal people do not feel entitled to just take. I feel entitled purchase a television but I don't feel entitled to just take one.

Perhaps it would make more sense to be concerned that the institution of prostitution may engender the belief that all women can be bought.

Oh yes, Kim definitely the institution rather than you personally! I don't want to make ad feminam attacks on you!

I'm off out so won't able to reply for a while, but happy chatting everyone.

Frankly, it's unbelievable that people can't see the difference between stacking shelves and having body parts and objects pushed into your vagina, anus or mouth. Should the Girl Guides start offering badges? How about stalls at Career Fairs?

It's an argument steeped in cognitive dissonance.

Why don't we start up blood farms where people can lie all day having their blood extracted? Or, following last night's Newsnight, stool farms. Your job could be to eat All Bran all day and have your stool harvested. What about milk farms where lactating women can be hooked up to milk pumps? Bone marrow farms, the list goes on. Are these okay so long as there is consent? Would we have a problem if we realised it was predominantly the poorest and most desperate people who were doing it because every now and then a university student thinks there's easy money in it and they won't feel damaged by the constant invasion of their bodily integrity?

"They wish to have sex with someone other than their wife (perhaps because they are no longer having sex with their wives) but they feel an affair would be complicated and possibly disastrous."

So the financial transaction protects them, as well as guaranteeing them sex (once vetted and agreed terms)

We've had punters (self identified) on here who think it's fine for women to accept a penis inside their body when they are not sexually attracted to the owner, but recoil in horror at the thought of themselves doing the same thing, because they aren't gay. And they simply can't see the link between their sexual feelings and a woman's sexual feelings. So, there's that.

I don't think one's sexual orientation has anything to do with finding the idea repugnant. I mean, many heterosexual women do and plenty of gay men do as well. So they were clearly missing the point of the question. However, they may have meant that if they were gay they could possibly imagine it?

I have zero interest in purchasing sex from a man. I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if I couldn't have sex any other way and I am not sure I can. Perhaps I would feel differently if that were the case. I honestly do not know.

Frankly, it's unbelievable that people can't see the difference between stacking shelves and having body parts and objects pushed into your vagina, anus or mouth.

Well, I can see the difference between stacking shelves and lecturing at a university. Of course what I do feels different from stacking shelves. But, I don't find the idea of having body parts and objects pushed into my vagina, anus or mouth particularly upsetting. I mean, when you phrase it that way - as if the receiver were merely a passive object - it does sound terrible. But what I experience is not terrible as I am not passive.

Why don't we start up blood farms where people can lie all day having their blood extracted? Or, following last night's Newsnight, stool farms. Your job could be to eat All Bran all day and have your stool harvested. What about milk farms where lactating women can be hooked up to milk pumps? Bone marrow farms, the list goes on. Are these okay so long as there is consent? Would we have a problem if we realised it was predominantly the poorest and most desperate people who were doing it because every now and then a university student thinks there's easy money in it and they won't feel damaged by the constant invasion of their bodily integrity?

I'm not sure if what you're objecting to is people selling their blood, feces, milk, etc or the idea that they are - in your scenario - lying passively while things are being harvested from them "all day." Surely the sexual equivalent would be some sort of brothel where the women are lying passively and allowing men to climb on top of them. I certainly think that's an abhorrent picture, but it doesn't describe what I do nor does it describe anything I have ever heard of.

No it's not the lying passively that is the issue although you may like to read this:

www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html