Prostitution; help me argue on Facebook

[MrsTerryPratchett]

I'm arguing with a friend on FB about prostitution. She is the most libfem, choosy choice, libertarian person I know. Currently at college so every second post is about gender neutral bathrooms and the like. I almost never engage.

But her argument is that most prostitution is hidden and therefore we can't know that these workers aren't happy, healthy, free and consenting. I've given her the PTSD stats and the violence and rape stats. But she is insisting that these invisible women are all loving it.

Any stats on home-based, self-employed workers? Also, I know that people here have said that workers' organisations are frequently dominated by pimps. Where's the proof of that. And, former workers who are radfem/anti-sex work and have written pieces about it?

Sorry to use your labour

I think we've explained the many ways it's intrinsically harmful to women - both women as a class, and specific women, both mentally and physically.

Perhaps you can explain why it's not?

why would your husband find out you used to be a prostitute?

See, its something you think women should keep secret, isnt it. Because it devalues them.
Do you think they never meet their clients in RL? Would you risk being outed? Women generally dont live the double life many men do, they dont create an entire false identity to hide their behaviour.

And why would a feminist care if men consider her a good catch as a wife?
'Good catch' isn't how I think about relationships. 'Good match' is more my ethos.
Its men that dont marry prostitutes. Why dont you ask them what the problem is and report back?

How many men would rather be homeless and destitute than a rent boy? Why do you only see it as an option for women?

This would come under option A. It's already being done in Sweden and puts women in more danger.

Citation?

Who cares what sort of men use prostitutes. Who cares what sort of men hijack planes and fly them into buildings. The fact is they exist and aren't going away, so we have to accept that and deal with it

We don't accept hijackers and terrorists. They are criminals.

I said nothing whatsoever about men marrying ex prostitutes. Casual consenting sex is not immoral; buying sex is.

Datun Why?

Because we live in real life? Because we live in an imperfect world and bad things happen? When it rains on your washing do you stand in the garden with your hands outstretched asking God "Why?" Or do you grab a basket and get the washing in?

^The fact that a contingent of males feel entitled to fuck women (children/animals) as though their conscious experience of what is happening doesn't matter, eg whether they feel fear, pain, boredom, sadness, while they are being fucked, is of concern to all women (and children and animals for that matter)

The attitudes and sense of sexual entitlement of these men can be harmful both within and outside prostitution and should not be validated or encouraged by normalising prostitution, for the sake of anyone who does not want to be used as a fuck-doll. Geddit?.^

Don't forget about murderers and rapists. What's your point? Some people are bad. The Aztecs sacrificed a few people every year to ensure the crops would grow, saving thousands of lives. Society is utilitarian.

If you see no harm in robotic women being provided for men to use, why don't you hook up with other like-minded individuals and penetrate eachother in the anus for free?

Far more cost-effective and you can appreciate the 'value' you each place on one another.

So, we should sacrifice a few vulnerable women for bad men to be able to wank into?

For what purpose? If society is utilitarian, what purpose does that serve?

Don't forget about murderers and rapists. What's your point? Some people are bad. The Aztecs sacrificed a few people every year to ensure the crops would grow, saving thousands of lives. Society is utilitarian.

And murderers and rapists are criminals. As should men who buy sex be.

I think Datun has it - if being a prostitute is a fine and dandy job, then off you go and offer your orifices to each other - you can take turns, no money needs to exchange hands, and no women need be harmed at all.

Some people are bad
Indeed, and the normal thing to with bad people when they do bad things, is to put them through the criminal justice system, not cater to them commercially with opportunities to do the bad things they want to do.

Some people are bad

Agreed. And society finds these people unacceptable.

ChocChocPorridge - seriously, google. But because you're lazy here are two articles, huffington post and time.

DJBaggySmalls - See, its something you think women should keep secret, isnt it. Because it devalues them.

Would you tell your prospective husband about the multiple blowjobs you gave in a nightclub? Would it 'devalue' you?

How many men would rather be homeless and destitute than a rent boy? Why do you only see it as an option for women?

There are lots of desperate young men working as rent boys, it's usually men who pay for them. I suspect there isn't the same demand as there is for female prostitutes, but I imagine the job is much the same.

We don't accept hijackers and terrorists. They are criminals.

Exactly. So we do things which reduce the number of terrorists. But we don't just make it illegal, no terrorist is going to stop blowing things up because we told them not to. What do you propose we do to reduce the number of prostitutes/punters?

For what purpose? If society is utilitarian, what purpose does that serve?

For what purpose is 1 + 1 = 2? It's the way it is, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I think Datun has it - if being a prostitute is a fine and dandy job, then off you go and offer your orifices to each other - you can take turns, no money needs to exchange hands, and no women need be harmed at all.

Don't throw a hissy fit because you can't justify your opinions. I haven't been rude to you.

So, it's nothing to do with utilitarianism then, it merely suits you to have a class of women available for men you deem bad to be able to harm.

I would posit that it therefore YOU who doesn't care about the harm prostitution does to women, as long as you can pay to wank into them.

user1492155021

You're asking feminists the same question in all manner of different ways in order to find a loophole in the argument.

Your justification is that men need something to stick their cock into. Anything - even it's made of metal or inflatable.

So why is another punter's anus not the solution?

For what purpose is 1 + 1 = 2? It's the way it is, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

We're back to women being a minority group again.

I have googled, and I've already read both those articles and have some major issues with some of the things they say.

How about:

s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/welcome-to-paradise/

Does that sound like a safe and acceptable work environment?

Or this

www.spectator.co.uk/2013/02/flesh-for-sale/#

Decriminalization is demonstrably worse for women.

Don't throw a hissy fit because you can't justify your opinions. I haven't been rude to you.

No hissy fits - an alternative to prostitution - an option e) if you like - a community where men who want to have sex, but don't want to find someone who wants to have sex with them, have sex with each other instead.

Like babysitting your neighbour's dog so they'll water your plants when you're away on holiday.

So why is another punter's anus not the solution?
Indeed - and practical too.

Is it really so demeaning to take care of yourself, or use a silicon anus? Poor menz.

Like babysitting your neighbour's dog so they'll water your plants when you're away on holiday
Perfect

Like babysitting your neighbour's dog so they'll water your plants when you're away on holiday

"Could you bring the post in at the same time, the cactus doesn't need much water, there's milk in the fridge, oh and I've left the silicone rectum on the nightstand."

This is why people don't like feminists: your incapable of having a calm, logical debate. Any discussion devolves into ad hominem attacks. Where did I say prostitution was a good thing? I've consistently acknowledged the harm and exploitation involved.

I'm a woman, and I'd even consider myself a feminist if it wasn't associated with angry ranting man haters.

Datun - We're back to women being a minority group again.

Prostitutes are a minority. There are roughly 50/50 men and women in this country.

Xenophile, do you know what utilitarianism means? Do you know anything about ethics? Is it justifiable to kill one person to save 100?

None of you have actually answered my question. How do you propose we successfully end prostitution? Making it illegal doesn't stop it - people still buy drugs.

user1492155021 Fri 14-Apr-17 09:08:42
Hypothetically, if prostitution were legal and women only did it if they wanted to, would you still be opposed to it?

That was you question, we answered it but you didnt like the answers and went all over the place.

I've consistently acknowledged the harm and exploitation involved.

What at the same time you have tried to justify it on the basis that men will be men.

Punish the punters. On the spot thousand pound fines.

Where did I say prostitution was a good thing? I've consistently acknowledged the harm and exploitation involved.

And yet you seem to think it's inevitable, and that it should be decriminalised - you can see why we'd be confused.

Haven't seen any ad hominem attacks - can you point them out, we can report those and have them removed.

How do you propose we successfully end prostitution? Making it illegal doesn't stop it - people still buy drugs.

Nope, and murder being illegal doesn't stop murder. It does however make it clear to society that murdering is harmful, and you shouldn't do it. It models the society we would like, even if the reality is that some people still murder.

I think that doing the same for paying for sex is reasonable. We managed it for drink driving, we can manage it for buying sex.