examples of misogyny permeating our culture, demonstrated by the bloke pouring hot coffee on his head.

[UnDeuxTroisCatsSank]

I read this article about a homeless man who accepted $5 from an arrogant shit in exchange for pouring hot coffee over his head. And the arrogant shit filmed it on his phone, presumably for "fun".

The homeless man, Ronald Leggatt, explained later he was desperate for the money and so willing to take the burns from the hot coffee.

Shocking and appalling behavior from the arrogant shit.

There's a happier ending in that someone overheard the whole thing, confronted the shit and then tried to make things better for Mr. Leggatt, including paying for him to get into a shelter during Hurricane Jonas and getting him some clothes from Walmart.

But this whole sorry story got me thinking. About the parallels with prostitution. Hang on, bear with me.

I just thought that most people would be appalled by the story of Mr Leggatt and empathize with his desperation to get $5 and yet when women are desperate, penniless, just surviving in dire financial straits and ready to do something, anything even though it will cause them harm such as sell their bodies, I don't see good Samaritans rushing to buy them clothes in Walmart and checking them into hostels for the night.

I think many people feel that people working as prostitutes are (a) willing and (b) maybe even like it. Never considering what desperation can make a person do.

Mr Leggatt was desperate and acted in a way that most people would never do.
Many prostituted women are desperate and act in a way that many people would never do.

One is understood and receives empathy, the other not only accepted but vilified, judged and othered.

Just thoughts about the misogyny that permeates our culture.

(And I hope Mr Leggatt gets medical help and support, because he does sound desperate, poor bloke.)

We are contrasting this man physically harming himself for desperately needed money with women undertaking prostitution, an act which very frequently causes mental and physical harm, for desperately needed money.

Comfortably off women with choices marrying better off men with choices, presumably putting themselves at no risk of physical or mental harm, is quite a different situation, isn't it?

What's your stance on the former, grimarse?

I doubt Fabiana Flosi would have married Bernie Ecclestone if he had been in an ordinary job

But he isn't an ordinary bloke in an ordinary job. You are assuming it is only his cash which was attractive.

It reminds me of that nasty little question Mrs Merton put to Debbie McGee - "So, what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?"

Whatever it was, it has endured 28 years and long outlived Carolina Aherne's own marriage.


We have legal prostitution in Germany.

Health and Safety seems limited. Only Bavaria makes condom use compulsory including during oral sex. You can see quite clearly on the website of the brothels in the town I live in (not Bavaria) that many of the women offer services without condoms. Since they changed the law in 2002, sex workers can now get health insurance and pensions contributions but the reports are still horrifying and trafficking has gone up. It's pretty depressing too. I've seen them standing at the sides of the road several times, often in December/January, it's freezing. I thought that was illegal but apparently, it isn't.

Not easy reading but if you're interested:
s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/welcome-to-paradise/

Relevant:

"“It’s easier to open a brothel in Germany than a chip shop,” she says. That’s actually true: while premises serving food need special licences there are no restrictions on brothels. That’s because all they do, technically, is rent rooms. The prostitutes are their customers just as much as the punters are. Sometimes, more so."

" “Flat rate” places pay the prostitutes for a shift, making their money from the bar and the punters’ entry fees. The women working here were given strict rules: they had to be completely naked at all times and, according to Sporer, were sometimes obliged to offer unprotected sex. If they broke a rule, they had to pay a fine to the brothel. “The court declared all this to be legal,” said Sporer, because the brothel owners had “right of direction” over the women - as they would over any other employee."

In general, Bertie, is Germany high or low on "protection" of workers? I always thought it would be high.

My stance on the former, Womanin, is that no-one should have to put themselves at risk of harm in order to make a living.

The OP seems to me to be a false equivalence - it compares one individual with a heterogeneous group. But it does raise an interesting point about status within society. Most people don't give much thought to prostitutes' welfare, and the majority of prostitutes are women. Most people don't give much thought to homeless peoples' welfare, and the majority of the homeless are men. Both groups are at risk of violence, mistreatment and drug abuse. And both are vilified. Gender doesn't seem to mitigate the risks to either group.

I disagree that it's a false equivalence. The post was about the judgement of the money provider and the harm receiver in this case and in prostitution. Pick an individual instance of prostitute use, if you prefer.

It is clear that the payer in the former case is judged for deliberately causing harm for his own entertainment. Far less so in the latter case, typically, where judgement is more likely to be "saddo, can't you get it without paying for it?"

I disagree with your disagreement. If I wanted to go and pick an individual prostitute, I could choose one who actively chose to do it, and then where would we be? Comparing individuals to groups does not make sense.

The societal attitude to both the homeless and prostitutes is the same - 'you have no intrinsic economic value, therefore we don't give a hoot about your welfare.' We all walk past beggars and ignore them. We all ignore prostitutes. I have been approached by both, and walked on by.

And society's attitude to those that pay to do them harm?

I hope im not coming across as if i think prostitution is all fine and dandy, because i dont. I think its massively problematic, and it is a pretty shit sort of agency, but the poor grab whatever scraps of agency they can, and I think the people "in charge" are already making sure the poor are getting poorer. The welfare state eroded. Prostitution is obviously completely distateful to many people, but if someones agency has been eroded to "do this or starve", then without the structure in place to give them other options, then I wouldnt choose to remove that from them.
Not all prostitutes are slaves, and not all prostitute users are sadists.

I have several ex prostitutes as friends. They dont fit your narrative.

if you want to try to understand a problem you at least need to be accurate with your description of it.

To use another analogy, like the difference between how some people insist all drugs are terrible and will lead to this or that. We all know that there are massive issues in the drug trade and amongst users, but if anyones got any experience of it they realise that its a lot more nuanced than that, and ofc noones worried about the high fliers doing coke, as much as they are about poor peoples drugs.

A lot of it is about moralising and legislating about what poor people do when theyre just trying to exist, and banning them from doing it

You can pay a prostitute for sex without wishing harm, in some cases. For those that do inflict harm deliberately, and with malice, then society does not condone them. It punishes them. That is what the law states. Again, you can find cases where the law is not applied, but the law of the land punishes people who inflict harm on others. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

And we can all find cases where it works out otherwise, but that is why comparing apples with oranges is wrong.

I also wish to express my dislike of prostitution, because it harms some. At the same time, it is not for me to tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

Those men who contribute to Punter net, that are quoted on Everyday Sexism...

They are normal, every day men. With wives and families. Holding down responsible jobs, presumably often tasked to look after the interests of some of our more vulnerable society members. The type of men who "would never hit a woman" and even some that profess to have feminist sympathies.

They are not "monsters" or "sadists" in their every day real life or no one would ever have a relationship with them. They live next door to you. You might be related to one of them. You might be married to one of them.

They would swear on their loved ones lives that they don't wish women harm. They will tut along with everyone else at the latest rape on the news

And yet. They still harm women.

Sorry, I meant to type Every day Sexism and Invisible Men blog.

because they dont (necessarily) see it as harming women, or as rape. They see it as having sex. They see it as a mutually beneficial transaction, which in some ways it is (best case scenario) The homeless man needed a fiver more than he needed personal dignity and there are ways of not feeling pain

The women who have so little choices in life that they turn to prostitution - presumably they are doign it because they have very little other ways to bring in money. What do you think they should do instead? Just get another job. That would be nice I guess.

I think it helps to realise that actually for a massive amount of people there actually ISNT anything else. They dont have the option to have a nice life like you or I. They never did have, and never will

There are ways of not feeling pain ?

I don't judge the women who turn to prostitution. Let's examine the behaviour of men who use prostitutes.

Or let us examine the causes of poverty and desperation that lead women to prostitution. We live in a society that leaves some people no alternative source of income. People who only want a roof over their head and food and clothing for their family. That is the real scandal.

I think the reasons men use prostitutes are just as varied, and the men ive known who have used them may have all had problematic relationships with women in their life, but I would not simplify that down to all being misogynists. May not even be clever or educated enough to discuss the ins and outs and nuances of different types of consent.

Rich people have always been able to buy other peoples affections. Kind of what marriage was always about

Theres a massive class divide as to instances when it becomes a terrible problem and when its just fine

Saying the reasons men use prostitutes is "nuanced" is minimising the harm

To my mind there is one underlying reason and it is the most obvious one. No major intellect or level of education is required. They think it is OK to buy consent to invade women's bodies. They think they have the right to do that.

I remember watching a programme about prostitutes.

There were 3 cases that stop in my mind.

1 was an elderly gentleman whose wife had cancer I think so couldn't have sex at all and the man saw a prostitute once a month with his wife's agreement. He seemed to have quite an emotional attachment to the prostitute he saw.

The other 2 were disabled men who couldn't form relationships for one reason or another. 1 of them (who was quite severely physically disabled) arranged for a prostitute to come round to his house, the other arranged for more of a"girlfriend experience" mentioned up thread.

I couldn't help but think that in some ways the men were as vulnerable as the women.

Ever since then I can't see prostitution as black & white. To an extent I wish I'd never seen the programme.

Anyfucker, I think youre wrong to say that no major intellect or level of education is required. A great deal is if they are to overcome the general culture that a massive amount of people are brought up in.

There are a massive amount of things people will do for money that they wouldnt do for love or the fun of it. This is practically all menial low paid work.
Do you think you cant buy consent?
I think the terms you use about sex being invasion, or being paid for it meaning they are buying that persons body, are massively different from how people describe people hiring other people to do other types of undesirable work. There is still so much misogynistic terms about how having sex with a woman means you own her. About how sex is one of the worst things that can happen to a women.

I get this feeling that people have an idea in their heads of what a prostitute MUST be feeling. It isnt always reality..

The root cause of the problem is not men buying women's bodies. It is women who are abandoned in poverty who have no other choice.

I'd rather have 'sad' men driving round looking for non-existent prostitutes, than have prostitutes with a shrinking client base.

"The root cause of the problem is not men buying women's bodies. It is women who are abandoned in poverty who have no other choice."

Those women only have the choice because of those men, though.
If a man had "no choice" but to sell his body and stood on a street corner, he'd starve pretty quick.

So, if you fix the problem of the women's poverty, prostitution disappears. The male clients can then do what the fuck they like - find a girlfriend, talk to their wives, play snooker - problem solved. The victims here are the women, so fix their problems. The men then become irrelevant.

A lot of men prostitute themselves too. Young street homeless.

I think casual prostitution is EXTREMELY common. You probably know several people who have done it at some point in their lives but because of the massive stigma it wont be admitted.

This sort of work is impossible to get quantifiable data on because of the stigma and assumptions