Does having sex with a prostitute constitute rape?

[quencher]

A thread triggered this for me so I have decided to ask the question. If you consent to be paid for sex but don't feel like sleeping with the customer, are you being raped?

Why is sex consider so much more damaging (to the point we restrict women's right to choose to do it) but not jobs that are physically dangerous?

Prostitution isn't only about sex though, it's about owning another person and laying claim to their bodily autonomy even if it is only for thirty minutes or however long a session lasts. It's using people, predominantly women, as a commodity.

Yes, but those are separate arguments.

There are many valid arguments against prostitution, hence why I am against it.

Obviously there are real physical risks associated with the sex industry.

But a lot of the debate is predicated on a belief that sex is fundamentally damaging for woman, and that is problematic, because that same belief has been used for millennia to deny female sexuality and deny them the right to control their own sexuality.

I'm not articulating it well, but there are great essays and books on this argument out there.

The debate is predicated on rape being fundamentally damaging for women, not sex. The right to chose one's sexual partners freely is central to enjoying sexuality, I would have thought. Prostitution is all about men's sexuality and women being available to service it whether they like it or not.

Thank you age for that post.

Thanks for the thread. It has really helped me to crystallise my opinion: that paid for consent is not meaningful so therefore prostitution is rape.

By that standard traditional marriage is rape.

Is any woman who decides to sleep with a man to get a meal in a 5* restaurant, or a Gucci handbag, being raped?

Denying women the right to ownership of their own bodies and the right to make choices over their own bodies is inherently misogynistic.

Nobody is denying women anything.

They are denying men the right to use money to get away with rapes.

Is PIV sex rape? really?

"Is PIV sex rape? hmm really?" Why do you ask?

Someone said this I think on page 2. Sorry I couldn't go through all the messages to see if someone asked already but there was a link the poster also gave I think arguing that PIV was rape.

Littleprinces traditional marriage used to be that the man had ownership over the woman. The father of the bride would hand her over to another man to take her under his wing. Women who were married were routinely raped because men wanted to fulfil their conjugal rights. These were not seen as rape but the right of the man to have sex with his rightful wife and property.

Women you have described, their choices have always been described as prostitution (prostituting themselves). Exchanging their body for material goods. We hear it all the time.
Can the woman walk away without guilt or any form abuse? Do these men feel like they have the right to their bodies when they buy these gifts? If so, it means they believe the women become property for that amount of time they spend with them. If the women can't say no to sex, how is it different to the debate we are having?

The link is, I presume, to a 2012 blog post that few people agree with and which isn't the topic of the thread.

Interesting that's what you picked up on, though.

The thing is, Alan Sugar's life was determined by his parents, family, teachers, friends, innate personality, physical health, and more. No two people are exactly alike, and they'll approach things differently, even from within the same family. I wouldn't just rank someone by their socio-economic position, that would be pointless.

And I think maybe you're missing the point I'm trying to make (or perhaps I'm expressing it particularly poorly) about children.

Twelve year olds can physically have babies. It's not ideal for many physical and emotional reasons, and again this isn't something I'm advocating (my abuse started properly about this age) but they can.

We all socially agree they shouldn't have sex because they could make a choice which hurts them in the long run (whether that's a pregnancy, an STD, or a bad sexual experience, etc). They're too "immature" and perhaps hormonal to make that choice for themselves.

Meanwhile society is fine with a 30 year old making that choice - even if she's had a shitty family, little or no education, no wealth, perhaps significant health problems or lower mental health and "maturity" due to an abusive and deprived life. She actually may have even less "choice" than that 12 year old (who could perhaps reach out to their parents or teachers for support, as I did).

But some people have sympathy for the former but not for the latter who is a grown-up and able to "make their own choices". Because she passed the age of 16 or whatever.

Does any of that make any sense? I might be talking nonsense, but it doesn't feel that way to me.

(I am 100% against child abuse, just in case that's not clear!)

Great post Adala

Yes you are right adala.
Society expects all 30 yo, regarding of the backgrounds and history, to be able to look after themselves and take decision that will not harm them.

The very big issue with saying that some 30yo might not be able to is that someone will have to take that decision. Who will be these people above most people that will be able to decide whether one can or not look after themselves?
My friend who has severe MH issues, struggles to hold onto a job etc... does she need protection and someone to decide for her that she can't sell her body? Because you see she has MH, suffered from abuse as a child and then rape? Do we need to tell her that she will be stripped from her human right of deciding for herself what to do with her body?
Would that also work for self harming (which she does)?

Deciding for others that they need to be protected, aka treated as children and being stripped from their own freedom (or at least on some level), is a very dangerous slope IMO. Where will you stop to say that one needs to be protected from harm from themselves (because of their past experiences etc..)?

But a lot of the debate is predicated on a belief that sex is fundamentally damaging for woman, and that is problematic, because that same belief has been used for millennia to deny female sexuality and deny them the right to control their own sexuality.

YY to that.
That's another side about wanting to protect women. It's still about telling women what is and isn't good for them.
Is that really the case that women can't actually decide for themselves ever? Or is that a left over from a very patriarch society that tell us that women aren't intelligent/good enough and need to be told instead (aka their freedom taken away for their own good)

Maybe we should concentrate on saying to men "no, you may not pay to put your cock into a woman. If you do, you will be locked up. We will crack down HARD on men who think this is ok, and gradually this will lead to men starting to realise that actually their orgasm is not more important than a woman's bodily integrity"

I do believe that having unwanted sex that wouldn't be taking place of there wasn't an imbalance in economic need between the participants is damaging for the person who is being paid in lieu of consent. The difference is that I don't think this constitutes sex, I think it is rape. I don't think sex that is freely and enthusiastically consented to and wanted is damaging to women at all

It really pisses me off actually that the abolitionist position is framed as being prudes who don't think women should have sex. In fact it's the opposite. Pro prostitution people think women should be having sex that they don't want, with men that they wouldn't freely chose to sleep with. Now that is fucked up

www.trauma-and-prostitution.eu/en/2016/11/02/the-german-model-is-producing-hell-on-earth/

The above is about legalised brothels in Germany. It's not an easy read but it demonstrates what's actually happening to prostituted women in pursuit of male orgasms.

"It really pisses me off actually that the abolitionist position is framed as being prudes who don't think women should have sex"

Absolutely.

ageing if you look upthread, you will that IMO, the answer isn't in 'protecting' women but in tackling men attitude towards women in general.

Yes you can also make prostitution illegal and to punish men who use prostitutes instead.

Re economic imbalances ... actually that's why I don't think men should ever stop to work and become SAHM. They are in a situation of economic imbalance and therefore more vulnerable in their relationship (and as we know some men have no issue with abusing it)
But that's another issue altogether.

What is the 'abolitionist position' (abolitionism is for me the libération of blacks...)

I work in a healthcare organisation, and for many patients, they lack 'capacity'

This is the ability to make a choice, and can be impaired by mental illness and dementia.

They are legally recognised as being unable to make a free choice.

Women on the game are not. (or women tempted to go on the game, but don't. )

Ever seen a homeless female beggar on the street? Why is she sitting there in the cold, paper cup at her feet when she could be nice and warm in a hostel if she just shagged a few punters?

Because she made the decision not to do that, that's why.

Go and tell her that she has no free choice.

Selling sex doesn't have to be criminalised, but buying sex should definitely be illegal imo.
Yes another issue re sahms. Childcare in general (for your own children or other people's) is undervalued in our society, like so many jobs that are mainly done by women.