Why do men use prostitutes?

[QuentinSummers]

Guardian have published a summary of a research project here
www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/15/why-men-use-prostitutes
Men were asked what would put them off. A criminal record, an ASBO or their employer being told was the answer. Finding out the woman was pimped or coerced apparently not so much.
Not sure how that squares with the full decriminalisation model.

I just saw this in a feminist group on Facebook. It seemed relevant.

The lack of concern among punters about women being coerced into prostitution through trafficking is shocking, but sadly didn't come as a surprise. And the fact that they didn't want them to like it is also very telling.

There's basically no way a punter can know whether a sex worker is there willingly or not, so I guess some just close their minds to that so their consciences are not troubled.

Others are basically paying to rape women. Horrifically, some of these men are murderers as well as rapists. Basically they can get away with treating these women in the way they deserve to be treated, as they see it.

So, hatred of women is not an exaggeration at all. It's the plain truth. Otherwise they would be concerned to think a girl might have been trafficked from her own country and be in fear for her life.

What has been interesting today is that NIA has been at the High Court today seeking to get (I believe) a judicial review to have women who were trafficked into prostitution as teenagers’s criminal records sealed or expunged due to them being victims of crime rather than perpetrators. Not a single punter’s group or “sex workers” group was there or has been involved at all, which I feel says enormous amounts about where their sympathies actually lie.

Is this the group who have been barred from volunteer work with Girlguiding and others, because of their criminal records?

I agree, the silence from "sex work advocates" has been deafening.

I heard that on the radio just now xeno. I hope the women win their case.

Some of them have been barred from volunteering, but also from training as social workers in order to help girls like them.

Men were asked what would put them off. A criminal record, an ASBO or their employer being told was the answer. Finding out the woman was pimped or coerced apparently not so much.

Not sure how that squares with the full decriminalisation model.

I am a man who pays for sex. Yesterday, I completed a survey for men who pay for sex, which asked me this question, which in turn has piqued my interest in this thread.

The survey asked me what would stop me paying for sex. I can't remember what answers I selected specifically, but yes, if having a criminal record was a very real and likely possibility, then that would put me off paying for sex. I did not choose the answer which said knowing the woman was trafficked... but please let me explain this. It is important that these sorts of responses to surveys are understood correctly.

If I knew a woman was pimped or trafficked, that would only stop me paying for sex with that one specific woman. It would not stop me paying for sex as a whole; there are plenty of women I know who are completely willing, so I would continue paying for them. This is the reason why I did not say that knowing a woman was trafficked would stop me paying for sex.

The second, important point, is that the decriminalisation model would not make it legal to pay for sex with a coerced or trafficked woman; that would still be illegal, and it would still be classified as rape. So under the decriminalisation model, paying for sex with a willing woman would be completely legal, whereas paying for sex with a trafficked woman would be illegal. Given that this survey implies that men's greatest fears are getting into trouble with the police or having a criminal record, then introducing the decriminalisation model would be good news. Men would take care to ensure the women they are visiting are legal, and the threat of receiving a criminal record would scare them away if they sensed any possibility that something was not quite right and that the woman may be a victim of sex trafficking.

Under the Nordic model, if we assume it works as intended, then the threat of a criminal record would deter some men from paying for sex full stop (again for emphasis; this is if it works as intended). However, this only applies to men who have a fear of having a criminal record. Men who do not fear having a criminal record would continue to pay for sex... so now, the majority of clients of sex workers would be men who do not fear a criminal record. Logically, anyone can see why this is not good for sex worker safety.

So going back to the original comment;

Men were asked what would put them off. A criminal record, an ASBO or their employer being told was the answer. Finding out the woman was pimped or coerced apparently not so much.

So yes, these responses confirm that the decriminalisation model would be best for sex worker safety, and that the Nordic model would contribute to violence against sex workers.

You deserve a criminal record.

Lowering the number of overall men who feel confident and entitled to pay for sex is very much the goal here, so yeah we need the Nordic Model. You're not going to get anywhere with 'oh but then only the really really bad men will be left'. Yep, but the overall demand will have been drastically lowered which is a MASSIVE WIN. Fewer men paying for sex means fewer women being raped to survive. And then society can keep working on the issue to deal with the really really bad men.

Of course men will not stop raping women for money at the drop of a hat. People haven't stopped murdering each other, either, despite that having been illegal for quite some time. But we are very clear about which direction we need to be moving in.

'use'? OP?

Seems OP was quoting from The Guardian, so take it up with them. The OP was also a fair while ago. Just a disgusting john decided to dredge it up to tell us how he's one of the good ones because he doesn't hit prostitutes so they're lucky to have him, or something.

Sorry, I see you are just quoting the guardian.
It's the wrong verb though. 'rape' is what those men do. Rapists is what they are.

This is a grey rock.

That grey rock rocks.

@EamonnWright

People on here very rarely caveat things like that. It's men and men only.

I have to disagree. I primarily lurk around FWR and as a lurker I have been witness to many heated debates on different topics here. A great deal of FWR posters are married to men or have sons and all posters (female and male) have (or had) fathers.

My DH is the light of my life - I devote myself to him because of who I know him to be through communication and action (24yrs strong). He is the most magnificent and most beautiful being I have ever encountered. I co-parented my brother - he is precious to me and my heart would be less full as well as less resilient and protective of the vulnerable without him. My father (while old-fashioned) is loving, genuine, and I would not be as kind without insight into his big heart.

Do not assess frustration directed towards a group of men (not all men) as vitriol or 'hate of men'. Consider that we as women deal with misogyny on the daily and that comments likely shall not be tailored to your comfort. If you are not a consumer of prostitution why would comments (referencing a topic of female exploitation) fuel an angry fire for you? Defensive reactions are telling. Debate is fantastic - I love it but when one side gets defensive the fun falls away.

I get that the current climate is unsettling for you, women exist in a constant hurricane - the world's injustices can be too much to carry no matter your sex. You have some thoughtful statements, do not go the way of the 'Dark Side' - try to put yourself in our shoes. Bound in social restraints and oppressed we rise to bring equality with a recognition and appreciation of our differences (racial, sexual orientation, sex et al).

Because they can

I have never considered paying a woman for sex, let alone actually done it, and I think a lot of that is how I view other human beings. I preferred getting to know someone and I think that I am a loyal person, having been married for nearly 30 years, I have never had an affair.
During that time, I have known men and women who like casual sex and are quite open about it.
When I first started work in a large organisation, there were two girls in their late teens/early twenties who used to go to formula 1 and motor bike racing at Brands Hatch. They would go to these meetings with the intention of ending up in bed with famous drivers/riders, staying in nice hotels and enjoying fine dining.
They were probably doing this half a dozen times a year, for them it was glamorous and they were getting rewarded.
In effect, they were doing to men what men do to female prostitutes.
Of course, there is a difference because prostitution often involves coercion, violence, people trafficking, health risks etc.
There is then the other question about highly paid, self employed sex workers - escorts, both male and female, who will satisfy the needs of both sexes if they are wealthy enough.

"In effect, they were doing to men what men do to female prostitutes.
Of course, there is a difference because prostitution often involves coercion, violence, people trafficking, health risks etc."

Ffs. No they weren't doing to men what men do to prostitutes. Not even close. Not even slightly similar. What a completely pointless "comparison".

unflushable, thank you very much for your explanation. I appreciate your bravery in doing so here considering you were likely aware of the reception you'd be given.

More generally, regarding prostitution = paying for rape, I disagree with that logic on two points (though I'd just like to be clear that I don't support and encourage prostitution). Firstly, because it's a blanket definition being applied to all prostitutes and therefore supposes that there are no women capable of rationally consenting, which I find infantilising. Secondly, broadly defining any transaction involving money as coercive would mean that any work done for pay becomes slavery.

"Ffs. No they weren't doing to men what men do to prostitutes. Not even close. Not even slightly similar. What a completely pointless "comparison".

They had a day job and their weekend entertainment, involved going to a location to offer their bodies and be lavished with food and wine from men who had no intention of having a relationship with them.
You are actually quite right, that it is not similar to what men do to prostitutes, but it is voluntary prostitution.

I think it's truer to say that a man visiting a prostitute is potentially paying for rape, as there's no way that he can know that the woman he's paying for sex hasn't been trafficked. Trafficking victims are hardly going to tell them that they haven't consented, they tend to be terrified for their lives.

Men paying for sex also contribute to the demand for prostitutes, which is why it's worth their while for traffickers to force vulnerable women into prostitution.

Also, a lot of women in prostitution go into it to feed a drug addiction, so that isn't exactly what I would call genuine consent. A lot have been sexually abused in the past as well.

There will, obviously, be some women who choose freely to sell their bodies, but I suspect they're in the minority.

I know - cardinal sin , only reading the first page but:

Yes, and it went into lots of interesting details. But I should think they're the core reasons. Men who lack the social skills or looks to go out and pull someone for casual sex just pay for someone instead. All the stuff about their childhoods etc is secondary.

Bullshit. The women I have spoken to in prostitution (and I have had reason to) say the vast majority of punters are married, so that doesn't quite hold up. Probably been said by others by now but lets not pretend that prostitutes offer some service to ugly socially awkward men, no, even the ones in relationships already use them.

Apologies again, I know the thread will have moved on.

Lizzie48 says:
a lot of women in prostitution go into it to feed a drug addiction. While it is true that many if not most of street prostitutes are there to feed a habit-the majority of prostitution is indoors and all the survey evidence says drug habits are rare in this group.

Same goes for her statement A lot have been sexually abused in the past as well -while this is certainly true for some-mostly the disadvantaged street workers it is certainly not true for the majority as countless properly conducted surveys attest.

Also some women who choose freely to sell their bodies, but I suspect they're in the minority -you suspect they are the minority-so in other words you are just guessing-again surveys of those in prostitution-especially those working indoors (who are the majority) are generally happy with their occupation (see here and here)
So perhaps base your views on the evidence rather than supposition?

Oh and incidentally there have been a large number of Mumsnet threads on prostitution where a large number of current and ex prostitutes have told you like it is. Some have had dire experiences but many have good experiences-including many of those who have exited prostitution..

The Scottish National Party considers buying sex as a form of violence against women.

It proposes to change the law to a Scottish version of the Nordic Model, where buyers will be prosecuted and placed on the Sex Offenders register, I believe.

That's a pretty clear message to men who try to excuse themselves. There is no excuse.

I apologise for generalising. But I'm involved with a charity that helps women who have been victims of trafficking, so that has shaped my views inevitably. And millions of women are trafficked into prostitution, so a lot are not willing, however you look at it.

I've read the stories of women in prostitution who were previously victims of sexual abuse, so it is a factor. And women don't always disclose sexual abuse, so we won't know the actual numbers.

Okay, yes there probably are more women who are there willingly than I thought, I concede that I don't know enough about that to comment, and once again I apologise.

My point remains, that men who approach sex workers have no way of knowing whether the woman they're paying for sex is there willingly. I very much doubt that they spend time worrying about that.

The Scottish National Party considers buying sex as a form of violence against women

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scottish-national-party-conference-aberdeen-sex-work-prostitution-criminalisation-nordic-model-ash-a7637261.html%3famp

Are you referring to this? I emailed them at the time asking when it might be implemented and got the vaguest of replies.