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

Guardian

Nope, don't know that person. There's no way they'd be on any chat forum tbh, they aren't the type.

Lacuna
I would ask "but what do I get out of it?" because why would I do it for free when I could get something out of it? Even now when my partner wants to initiate sex with me I try and make deals about 'only if I get a lie-in', 'only if you make me the best coffees tomorrow' 'only if we do this tomorrow' because sex is a great bargaining tool imo.
Are you aware how defensive this comes across - like you are acting proud of being so distantly removed from affection and intimacy?
Most people don't see sex in this cynical transactional way. But since your first sexual experiences were financial transactransactions (at least I hope you weren't sexually active before 14 - that would be a whole other saddening thing) it must underpin your cynical view..

Come on Guardian, sex does not need 'affection and intimacy' to be valid, not at all, it can just as easily be pure carnal lust fucking. What the argument seems to be, is that sexual desire should be exchanged with sexual desire. That works because it is an equivalent exchange. Anything else muddies the water of validity, even things like 'I make myself available to my committed partner for sex because I love them, even when I do not desire sex for myself'.

ChocChoc - Paid sex is no more risky than casual un-paid sex?

No, but once you're earning money you have responsibilities around insurance, health and safety etc.

You can give someone a cake, but if you're making and selling them you need to have food hygiene certificates, get your kitchen inspected etc. That's what changes it from a casual hobby to a job.

Selling my kidneys would mean I'd probably die or need dialysis for the rest of my life?

You have 2, you can donate one at fairly low risk, lots of people go through life perfectly well with only one kidney - and someone gets to live!

Sell sex - someone gets to orgasm, all the risk is yours. Sell a kidney, you stop someone dying, and you both share risk. I'd suggest that donating a kidney is a much more worthwile thing to do it benefits society, yet it is illegal to buy a kidney in most countries. Why is that?

because sex is a great bargaining tool imo.

That just doesn't sound like a healthy attitude or relationship. I have sex because I want to have sex, not to get my partner to take the bins out! Do you even enjoy it? Don't you want to have sex because you'll enjoy it? Isn't that what you're getting out of it? Shouldn't you and your partner have a relationship where you can just ask for the lie-in tomorrow without having to 'pay' him in sex!?!

One of the main problems with prostitution is that by the time people get to decide or legislate on it, they have forgotten that sex and exposure and nakedness is a powerfully exciting thing to do in and of itself. Not for everyone maybe, but for enough to explain why prostitution may not be just driven by the buyers. By the time people become legislators or people who discuss sex beard-strokingly they have often forgotten this and why sex is important, and started to layer it with moral statements, judging of the poor, sex work cliches and ideas of purity and making a family.

When i was younger it was about being naked with someone you wanted to be naked with, and sheer pleasure and excitement. Now i wonder about long term compatibility, i guess soon I'll be saying 'whats the point's..Which is when I'll be at the age to be all 'something must be done about these poor dumb girls'

I do think there is a problem, however, with transactionalising all aspects of human behaviour too much, without a commensurate availability of money. One of the major risks of making sex available only in small time-slots, virtually, with money (as in webcamming etc) or in RL, is that people without money are excluded even from the most basic human drives. I feel it at the moment being single, i have to pay for someone to be simply nice to me (make me a coffee whilst I'm reading..Cafe,. Rub my shoulders when they are sore ..Massage at Therapy centre,. And even do some housework..Ironing service).. this over individualisation and monetisation of interactions that used to be bonding is i think very sad, but also very dangerous, as it creates ultra disadvantaged males, who without money can't get even the most basic human contact. There's a lot of evidence to show that when men have their status jeopardised by lack of any social currency they use aggression instead, so one problem i have is the effect of limiting social interactions to those that are monetised, at the same time as taking money away from most people.

The curious thing is that sex is more freely available without paying to those who are wealthier. I'm not sure whether that's reward/survival of the fittest, or just a Maslow thing..

Super comment scarylown.

You're so right that the trsnsactionalisation and 'individualisation and monetisiation' of all human interactions should be a real concern. The expansion of not only prostitution but a whole gig economy of sexual services (webcamming, chatlines, amateur 'pay per view' porn) is terrifying, but we should remember that it takes place in a wider context in which market forces have encroached on pretty much every territory of interpersonal life.

Internet dating is a perfect example. A lot of people think Match.com etc are these beneficial services which allow people to choose a partner from hundreds of possible matches. And in some ways they are. No doubt many people have found successful partnership as a result of using them. Regardless, we should be worried of about the cultural implication of financial transactions and computer algorithms being so central to the formation of romantic and sexual attachmnts, not to mention dating reduced to the same format as online shopping.

When you think about it in the following way it's really sobering. It is now very difficult to meet a partner without paying someone for the privilege and offering up your personal data for monetisation. People are rightly terrified of the NHS being marketised, but what we seem oddly indifferent to is the marketisation of human interaction itself - the wholesale transference of human relations from public spaces or spaces sealed off from market forces to corporate platforms.

As you say, one effect of this consumerisation of sex is the reinforcement of the patriarchal equation of sexual success with financial success - a market of winners and losers. And when you've got economically disadvantaged and socially isolated males in that culture, things can turn very ugly.

The problem with legalising prostitution is that they don't actually want to do that, they want to keep sacrificing women so men can orgasm, they don't want to make it a proper job where if you turn up at the job centre you can be forced to go and take on a shift. Why's that? Because they know it's different, because they know it's harmful.

Scary - that sounds rather like "be nice to us or we'll hurt you". It always seems to boil down to that.

Having to make your own coffee isn't that bad. Plenty of women throughout history have been on the other side of that - having to be nice to men so they don't throw them out to starve, being raped, doing all the housework, because they have no-where to go if they left. Not quite what I would call 'bonding' personally.

TBH it sounds like you are pining for the days when a woman could be forced to perform all these tasks for men because they weren't allowed to go out and earn their own money.

Women need to get angry about that.

It is now very difficult to meet a partner without paying someone for the privilege

What the hell are you talking about - there's a whole world of people out there you can talk to - I've never paid an online service to find a partner in my life! I've met them through clubs, work, living in the same building, hell, I've been out with a guy that I used to bump into at the supermarket every week. There's lots of ways to meet people that aren't online dating!

One more before I get started elsewhere for the day!

I notice that the functions you think should be done for free are ones traditionally done by women - making food, body cleansing, housework. I find that interesting. Do you feel that it would be more bonding and less of a moral drain if things like, oh, plastering a wall, or changing the oil in your car or mowing the lawn were done for free too? Or do you have no problem with monetizing traditionally male tasks but think that's women asking for payment for their labour that's the issue?

OK, that was an exaggeration. Of course lots of people still meet offline, but I think it's becoming harder. Or people - particularly younger people - feel it's easy to use online dating services. Research suggests that online interfaces will continue to play a more dominant role in the formation of relationships. I think it does depends on your age a bit. Most of my millennial friends and colleagues go straight to Tinder when they find themselves single.

www.pewresearch.org/fact

I don't quite understand your second point. For one, I don't think 'plastering a wall' etc should be regarded as 'traditionally male tasks'. Women should be able to do all those things in equal numbers. If women feel unable to break in to those areas of work then that's a seperate issue. And of course I don't think all capitalism is bad and everything should done for free. I'm not a hard-line communist. But I do think there is a problem when market forces encroach into areas like personal relationships, because then they're being commodified - with sexual relationships formed in a competitive marketplace. I don't think that's good for society.

Or do you have no problem with monetizing traditionally male tasks but think that's women asking for payment for their labour that's the issue?

Also, what sort of payment would a woman (or a man) receive for looking after children? If you mean something like a universal basic income then I'm completely in favour of that. It's why I'm voting for the Green Party.

For one, I don't think 'plastering a wall' etc should be regarded as 'traditionally male tasks'.

It's a job primarily done by men. (by the by, but it's also a job that's easier for men with their greater height and strength - I'm short even for a woman, and I have plastered a wall, and it was bloody hard because I had to climb up and down a bench to reach to the ceiling and the floor when my dad could just reach without). That's what traditional means. Doesn't necessarily mean women can't do it, but if you randomly pick a plaster out of the yellow pages, chances are it'll be a bloke.

My younger colleagues use Tinder perhaps for hookups, but relationships seem to be built very much like I did - by meeting people and realising there's an attraction. In fact the only people I know looking for or who have found relationships through things like match are the generation older than me (50s-60s)!

Nannies cost about 30k.

But Scary was talking about personal services - ironing, massages, making coffee - suggesting that the fact he paid people to do them, rather than having a woman who would do them for him as a 'bonding' activity was an issue with a commoditised society.

I see it as a step forward that women are being paid for their labour rather than expected to provide it for free because they're not allowed to earn money out of the home.

But Scary was talking about personal services - ironing, massages, making coffee - suggesting that the fact he paid people to do them, rather than having a woman who would do them for him as a 'bonding' activity was an issue with a commoditised society

Why does it necessarily have to be a woman who makes coffee for him? And why would he not necessarily be reciprocating by making a his partner a cup of coffee? Why can't couples share the ironing? Isn't that the whole goal of feminism. And the idea that woman can't plaster and do all these things is ludicrous. My female friend is a brilliant plumber.

Can I ask you, as a feminist, what would be the ideal family situation and how would it work economically? Let's assume that men and women will continue to have babies together and that those babies need looking after. What would be the ideal set up from a feminist point of view?

Nannies cost about 30k.

Well, quite - so if you've got a working-class man and woman on a combined wage of 35 K then you've got a problem. What's to be done?

Why does it necessarily have to be a woman who makes coffee for him? And why would he not necessarily be reciprocating by making a his partner a cup of coffee? Why can't couples share the ironing? Isn't that the whole goal of feminism. And the idea that woman can't plaster and do all these things is ludicrous. My female friend is a brilliant plumber.

They can, that is what feminism wants - but that's not what Scary was saying - he didn't say that he was upset because he didn't have someone to make coffee for, give massages to and do ironing with - he said it was bad that he had to pay someone to do those things for him. What is wrong with a couple paying for someone to do those things for them? Why is it bad that a single person has to pay to do these things, why were the examples things that traditionally women have been responsible for? Why didn't he use examples of things that you would be more likely to pay a man to do now, that previously they would have done for free?

It's a subtle difference, I can see why you wouldn't pick it up, but I, as someone who has spent a lot of time being expected to be the one doing those things for male partners did.

Well, quite - so if you've got a working-class man and woman on a combined wage of 35 K then you've got a problem. What's to be done?

Traditionally, and still commonly the woman would be strongly encouraged to give up their earning capacity and provide that labour which would cost 15k (half each), for free - she would be also expected to do all the other domestic labour for free, since she 'was home all day'. She'd find herself trapped in this relationship whether she wanted to be or not, because after a few years out of work, she'd have trouble getting any job that could support her, and she had the childcare responsibilities that further complicated that.

What's to be done? Well, I'm a radical feminist, I think we need to break down this whole full time work thing, these jobs that are artificially constructed so that they only work if you have someone at home to sort out all the rest of the stuff for you.

One of the most balanced couples I know both do a 3 day week while their kids are young - they both have time for hobbies, they both look after the kids, it's awesome. That's what should be done in my opinion.

Oh flipping heck
As soon as we start discussing topics that might affect mens entitlement to sex we get these people pontificating and derailing the thread. It's so transparent.
Can we discuss why it is that men feel so entitled to purchase sex and what we can do to reduce male demand for prostitution?

I take some if your points, but the idea that Starbucks are liberating women with a life outside the home by paying them £8 an hour is stretching it. Furthermore, though traditionally women have been expected to do all that work for free in a one-sided way, it does not have to be that way. It is entirely theoretically possible for men and women to enjoy mutually rewarding communal experiences without money changing hands or multinational corporations being involved - for men and women to do nice things for one another for their own sake and not for money. To conclude otherwise is to accept a highly cynical view of human nature.

So really your goal would be an economy and labour market in which both men and women earn enough working part time to share childcare equally? And that also women and men on their own would have the economic independence and support to raise children and work on their own too? I think they're valid and estimable goals, but feminists need to have a discussion about how they are to be achieved.

At the moment the lower end of the labour market wages are stagnant; many jobs are insecure and deuionised; the rental and property markets are completely out of control, depriving people of upwards of a third of their monthly income; jobs are disappearing; economic inequality is rising.

Many people - barristas for example - scrape by on a minimum wage. In order for poorly paid women to to have the level of free time and independence you propose their wage would have to increase to at least £30 an hour. And I can't see Costa or MacDonald's agreeing to that anytime soon.

Also, I would imagine that many poorer women - women who do not have the option of a career - elect to stay at the home because the alternative is worse. Would you rather spend all day wiping your own child's bum or wiping the bums of people in a care home run by an investment firm? Home with the kids or in a BT call centre all day? Stacking shelves under strip lights and surveillance cameras or ironing and hoovering in the comfort of your own home? I'd be at home if given the choice.

Working-class women often choose the role of the mother because working-class people don't have the option of a career. They just do horrible jobs for little money.

So basically, unless class inequalities are addressed feminism will not work.

"Can we discuss why it is that men feel so entitled to purchase sex and what we can do to reduce male demand for prostitution."

We tax rich people and give their money to poor women so they don't have to become prostitutes. That is the only thing that will work. If you have poverty, you will have abuse. Fact.

Oh flipping heck
As soon as we start discussing topics that might affect mens entitlement to sex we get these people pontificating and derailing the thread. It's so transparent

Indeed.

Can we discuss why it is that men feel so entitled to purchase sex and what we can do to reduce male demand for prostitution?

No, we're never allowed to do this. Not on a single thread about prostitution. Even threads that have started out asking about the men, have always, without fail, been turned round to discussions about mean feminists trying to take prostituted women's "agency" away from them.

It's inevitable that we will have two or more women who think they fit the "happy hooker" trope posting, saying how wonderful and empowerfulising it all is, while their words tell a very different story. We usually have a punter rock up to tell us how lovely he is to the women who's orifices he rents, he'll even let them stoke his dog while they cry out their fear and shame before he fucks them, he's that lovely.

So no, we'll never be allowed to talk about why men feel entitled to sex.

Gosh... I wonder why though?

but the idea that Starbucks are liberating women with a life outside the home by paying them £8 an hour is stretching it.

The idea that we're morally better by requring them to stay home making coffee for their husbands is stretching it too.

It is entirely theoretically possible for men and women to enjoy mutually rewarding communal experiences without money changing hands or multinational corporations being involved - for men and women to do nice things for one another for their own sake and not for money

Yes, but, as I said, it's interesting that that's not what Scary said.

And circling back to the point, brings us back to prostitution - sex for fun = fine, men thinking they can buy women = bad.

Working-class women often choose the role of the mother because working-class people don't have the option of a career. They just do horrible jobs for little money.

That's pretty much the final nail in the coffin of your pontificating about things you don't know. Working class women have always worked. They always did horrible jobs for little money (and less money than their husbands, even if it was the same job). Then they went home and did all the work there too. Well done for knowing nothing about the realities of being a woman.

Home with the kids or in a BT call centre all day? Stacking shelves under strip lights and surveillance cameras or ironing and hoovering in the comfort of your own home? I'd be at home if given the choice.

Yeah, shows you've never done any of those things (I have) - financial independence, even at a shit job, beats being trapped at home hoovering for free.

Try it. I think you'd eat your words.

There's a nasty classist undertone to your posts independent. The vast majority of WC women are not prostitutes and indeed we have a benefit system to try prevent women from having to turn to prostitution. I can accept money is a motivator but not that these women have no other choice. Unless they are addicted.
Again though, I don't mind why women take that path as long as it's a free choice. I do mind that MEN think it's OK to buy sex. What shall we do to reduce male demand?

There's a nasty classist undertone to your posts independent. The vast majority of WC women are not prostitutes and indeed we have a benefit system to try prevent women from having to turn to prostitution

I agree. Thanks, couldn't put my finger on it

I don't understand your point Quentin. I in no way suggested that the vast majority of working-class women are prostitutes, I suggested that the vast majority of prostitutes are working-class or of a lower socio-economic starata or in some way in financially straightened circumstances. In other words, women predominantly become prostitutes for economic reasons. I can't imagine there are many female investment bankers who meet up with grotty and possibly dangerous men in hotel rooms to be used like a wank bucket as a side line to the 300K a year job at Goldmann-Sachs. They are mostly refugees, migrants and the working-class.

What other impetus would a woman have for being a prostitute? Yes, there are these 'Belle De Jour' types who claim to enjoy it , but they're in a minority.

The refusal of middle-class liberals to acknowledge an economic dimension to various forms of oppression possibly stems from their reluctance to part with any of their money.