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 really don't know the answer to some of these questions, but I would be in favour of at least trying the Nordic Model. We can always repeal it if it doesn't have the desired effect.

One thing that worries me though concerns the status of the vulnerable. Are we going to tackle female poverty as well? Are we going to root out the sexual predators responsible for the abuse of children?

Then there is also sex itself. Why are so many sexual encounters so close to rape too many people are confused and often can't tell the difference between them?

I think all of these things need a comprehensive looking at and disscussion if we're going to make any headway.

Well that kicked off... Nice to know that when my friend gives up, there's always another pro-prostitution person to step in.

In answer to how to stop prostitution (and in light of the happy fucking robot utopia) my solution would be; women paid the same as men with as many options; men sharing responsibility for any children; decent drug and alcohol treatment available widely; end homelessness; a safety net that stops women falling into poverty; end child abuse; only allow pornography that emphasizes happiness and mutual consent and is made ethically (good luck with that); change the structures of society to give women as much power as men; have decent sex and relationship education that promotes healthy, consensual relationships and sex; empower women to have enjoyable, consensual sex free of stigma; prosecute rape properly so men knew that it wasn't essentially a risk-free crime...

I think that would deal with both the supply and the demand. However since there's not a tiny chance of that, let's criminalize the people who think consent is a commodity and women are something to masterbate into.

Thanks you user1492155021 for giving some intelligent thoughtful women a chance to explain the problems with prostitution in detail and the possible means of counteracting it.

But it is a shame your arguments are so incoherent.

You invent a hypothetical world where all prostitutes enjoy their work. "Never on a Sunday" is one of my favourite films, frankly. Personally, though the arguments against are good, I would love a world where prostitutes love their work, but that world never has and never will exist.

You say nobody cares about the women, just the principle of the thing. Before you started commenting I had posted about the white slavery practiced in Mexico. Considering I am the mother and grandmother of Mexican women, I care about the women.

I don't think anyone took users 'you don't care about the women, only the the immorality of the men' comment seriously.

I don't know any woman who thinks that.

Yes, you are right Datum, of course. And I have to say I always enjoy your insightful posts.

Dear lord. That was totally incoherent. What is it with "thought experiments"?
Why do these pro prostitution posters never want to discuss icky punter behaviour? rhetorical question

QuentinSummers

I know. Thought experiments is exactly right.

"What if this happened? Then what? Or this?"

They think if they can just get the formula right, women will be tricked into an illogical admission of some sort. And they get a gotcha moment.

And the thought experiment ignores the fact that there is a large proportion of the punters who either enjoy the nastier aspects of what they are doing or want to pretend that prostitutes love their advances. Both kinds wouldn't want a mindless robot. In the same way a blow up doll, hand or fleshlight doesn't cut it.

It also reminds me of the Futurama episode where Fry has a sex bot.

the law isn't based on subjective morality, it's utilitarian.
Sorry, to disappoint you user, but Utilitarianism is about maximising happiness for the great number. The law is deontological, not utilitarian.
For example, if I robbed a bank to give the money to charity, I would still go to prison, even if the harm to the staff and the business of the bank was deemed as lesser in negative value than the greater value benefit to the charity and its beneficiaries.

Get your facts right darlin'

And there are various kinds of utilitarianism. Because even philosophers acknowledge that if you could prove that the holocaust (I know, Godwin's, but they use this example) was largely beneficial to Germany, you still wouldn't condone it. So they frame it as "the greatest happiness to the greatest number, while protecting the rights of the few'. Or similar. There are various flavours.

Oh thank the lord and little fishes for you two!

I KNEW I didn't have utilitarianism wrong, but the silly man made me doubt myself.

the greatest happiness to the greatest number, while protecting the rights of the few'

And prostitution seems to be very much on the rise, so the few are really quite a lot. Apart from the indirect harm to womankind that has already been explained.

And just to make Xeno happier, Karl Popper framed it as reducing harm to the greatest number so prostitution definitely would be an issue.

Can I just say stirling work there ladies? Much admiration for your persistence & intelligence battling through the continuous boring stream of 'what ifs'.

I read back, and found it most interesting that us suggesting that perhaps the punters could exchange services between themselves seemed to be what triggered the accusations of 'hissy fits' 'illogical arguments' and 'ad hominem attacks'

I'm going to go ahead and assume some major homophobia if User thought that suggesting a bloke give another bloke a blow job was a personal attack!

https://goo.gl/images/Z08URH

Punters exchanging services amongst themselves is the ultimate thought experiment - but when it was suggested to user, the spluttering was audible.

Again (assuming user is indeed female), unless she's a prostitute (or ex-) herself, her arguments are meaningless.

Also slightly guffawing at the idea that idealism doesn't play an integral part in political / international / economic / policy design discourse.

You don't get to be a progressive society without a healthy dose of idealism.

I've consistently acknowledged the harm and exploitation involved.

I'd just like to highlight this gem, given how user has repeatedly ignored the argument that the existence (never mind societal condoning) of prostitution harms all women - before, after and at the same time as claiming that they acknowledge the harm it involves.

Given the content of many of their posts, I suppose it's possible that they just didn't understand the point when it was (repeatedly) being made.

I've consistently acknowledged the harm and exploitation involved

I think user fails (whether deliberately or not) to understand and acknowledge the wider societal harm that accepting prostitution as just a thing that happens. A society which just shrugs its shoulders and goes c'est la vie is a poorer and more brutal society than one which rejects that idea. That is why I see this as beyond a feminist issue.

User's analogies with various types of crime were ridiculous. A better analogy, for me, is treatment of animals (and don't take this the wrong way I am not comparing women with animals)

What I mean is depressingly there are countries which still permit dancing bears and performing circus animals. This is not made acceptable by giving these animals slightly larger cages- it should simply not happen at all.

A society which deems such hideous exploitative practices to be wrong is a better society than one which doesn't.

I agree that if prostitution is so necessary then punters should just exchange services with each other.

Today 10:55 TheSparrowhawk

I agree that if prostitution is so necessary then punters should just exchange services with each other.

All the highfalutin', social conscience arguments fall off the cliff at this point. It would be comic it wasn't so tragic.

The subjugation of women is a crucial component of prostitution.

Just sex? My arse.

Utilitarianism has limited use in any case. See here: editor.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/now-peter-singer-argues-that-it-might-be-okay-to-rape-disabled-people/

It needs too many fiddles and fixes to be of any real coherence. I think the only way it works is if you pair it with Kant's Commonwealth of Ends which is explicitly deontological. Each person should be treated as an end in themselves not merely as a means to an end. In laymans terms: don't use people.

There is no way you could justify prostitution under the Commonwealth of Ends.

I think that one of the biggest issues here is male entitlement.

There's this ingrained idea that men are very much entitled to sex and entitled to a woman. They're so very entitled that they should have freedom to buy a woman in the form of a prostitute, a porno, a stripper or a blow up doll.

There's little regard for the wider impact on women, the main concern seems to be that men must get to ejaculate over a woman.

Well that idea is skewed and causes many problems for women.

Men aren't entitled to sex, they aren't entitled to have a woman.

If men didn't believe that they were entitled to use a woman as a wank bag, as a quick means to an end, then there'd be no prostitution, and a lot less harm caused to women.

Rather than as user suggests and we accept men buying women's bodies, there needs to be a big shift in thinking. Men need to start treating women as equal human beings, with respect and dignity. Men need to accept that they can only have sex with another person if that person is a willing participant.

By willing participant that doesn't mean desperate for money and enduring the experience, it means mutual enjoyment and both people equal and on a level playing field.

I'd argue that paying a woman to use her body is rape. I'd give proper sentences for rape too. That would send a clear message.

The woman is not consenting in the true sense of the word. The vast majority of women involved won't have capacity to consent because they'll be very vulnerable women.

Trouble is rape isn't taken seriously, a big reason for that is because as I said, men are always entitled to a woman by whatever means. (I give you the example that only recently was rape considered to exist if she was his wife).So unless there are very extreme circumstances, there's rarely a conviction.