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.

That is one interpretation of a religious view.

Well, virtually all religious people I've met have expressed the view that sex is for marriage only, and that having sex with a woman outside of marriage is wrongly "taking something" away from her. Hence the reason why the main driving force behind the Nordic model is parties like the DUP.

I have also heard the argument that it is harmful to society- that it cheapens and trivialises something which should be meaningful. In the case of prostitution it devalues and cheapens something priceless which should be freely given and shared for mutual enjoyment.

Indeed, that's another perspective on sex that I heard from countless of my religious friends back in my school days.

Oh I'm a not particularly socially conservative but hardline atheist and those arguments make sense to me.

You can be socially conservative and be a hardline atheist. Being an atheist has nothing to do with being conservative or being liberal. If those arguments "make sense" to you (meaning you agree with them and are sympathetic to them), then you should consider the possibility that you have some conservative opinions when it comes to sex.

I have very liberal views on sex. It simply does not click in my head that anyone could be harmed by two, or multiple, consenting adults having intimate contact, and I cannot see how something as simple as sex can be "cheapened" because it does not have a whole lot of meaning to begin with.

Radical feminists and other feminists opposed to prostitution are not socially conservative, quite the contrary.

It is a conservative perspective, by definition. Please note that your quote from Pope Francis,

"this is not making love. It’s torturing a woman. Let’s not confuse the terms"

... could have just as easily been written by a feminist opposed by sex work. Christians and feminists opposed to sex work say the same things when it comes to this topic.

Well, virtually all religious people I've met have expressed the view that sex is for marriage only, and that having sex with a woman outside of marriage is wrongly "taking something" away from her. Hence the reason why the main driving force behind the Nordic model is parties like the DUP.

The SNP has expressed support for it.

If those arguments "make sense" to you (meaning you agree with them and are sympathetic to them), then you should consider the possibility that you have some conservative opinions when it comes to sex

Nope I don't. I don't have any problem with consenting adults having casual sex for fun. I did a lot of it in my younger days. The operative words are "consent" and "fun". Having to pay means there isn't consent.

It simply does not click in my head that anyone could be harmed by two, or multiple, consenting adults having intimate contact

But if one or more of them would not touch the other with a barge pole unless money was involved there is no consent. The person being bought is a masturbatory aid. That is bad on an individual level and ultimately bad for society as it dehumanises both the prostitute and the punter.

Prostitution is as old as patriarchy. There’s nothing socially progressive about commodifying women’s bodies for the benefit of men.

The SNP has expressed support for it.

But this is my point, the reason why feminism and Christianity have the same things to say on this topic is because both ideologies have socially conservative perspectives.

The operative words are "consent" and "fun". Having to pay means there isn't consent. But if one or more of them would not touch the other with a barge pole unless money was involved there is no consent. The person being bought is a masturbatory aid. That is bad on an individual level and ultimately bad for society as it dehumanises both the prostitute and the punter.

This is your perspective. My argument is that someone with more liberal perspectives on sex does not see things this way.

Well, virtually all religious people I've met have expressed the view that sex is for marriage only, and that having sex with a woman outside of marriage is wrongly "taking something" away from her. Hence the reason why the main driving force behind the Nordic model is parties like the DUP.

The SNP support it.

If those arguments "make sense" to you (meaning you agree with them and are sympathetic to them), then you should consider the possibility that you have some conservative opinions when it comes to sex

I have no problem with casual sex. I used to have a lot of it. As long as there is consent and it's fun for both , or more, no big deal. Please refer back to the comments someone made earlier decrying the young women and the Brands Hatch drivers. I thought what was described sounded like fun for all involved. No one being exploited or coerced- no issue.

It simply does not click in my head that anyone could be harmed by two, or multiple, consenting adults having intimate contact

It isn't consent if you would not touch the other person with a barge pole unless money was involved. The harm in prostitution is it reduces the individual woman to a masturbatory aid and the wider harm is it supports the dehumanising notion that it is ok to treat other humans as masturbatory aids.

Prostitution is as old as patriarchy.

Prostitution has nothing to do with patriarchy. "Strong man" countries with old conservative patriarchal values (obvious examples would be Saudi Arabia, Japan, China, the United States etc.) criminalise the payment of sex because the men in these countries see it as their duty to protect the weak, and to protect women.

There’s nothing socially progressive about commodifying women’s bodies for the benefit of men.

I didn't say it was progressive. I said it was liberal. Those are two completely different things.

It’s socially liberal to have sex with someone who wouldn’t touch you with a barge pole? For whom it’s not fun? Please identify the socially liberal aspect of this activity.

It’s socially liberal to have sex with someone who wouldn’t touch you with a barge pole? For whom it’s not fun? Please identify the socially liberal aspect of this activity.

Liberalism an ideology which emphasises the freedom of individuals with minimal interference (particularly with regards to moral or ethical questions) from the state. Hence, it's more liberal to allow people to decide for themselves what their own perspectives on sex are, and whether or not they choose to buy or sell it.

That's what the term "liberal" means. If you dislike it, then it means you do not have a liberal perspective on the subject... and that's completely OK. Liberal does not necessarily mean good and conservative does not necessarily mean bad (I'm not sure why so many think this), and everyone will have their different opinions on different subjects. That's what makes us all different.

The SNP has expressed support for it

But this is my point, the reason why feminism and Christianity have the same things to say on this topic is because both ideologies have socially conservative perspectives

Goodness knows I'm usually no fan of the SNP but the SNP is not a socially conservative party. Are you suggesting it has been infiltrated by radical feminists and evangelical Christians?

both ideologies have socially conservative perspectives

The liberation of women is not a socially conservative perspective. What a silly thing for you to say.

Men controlling women sexually by withholding or stealing resources from them then exchanging those illegitimately gained resources for sex is as socially conservative as you can get. Poverty is gendered: men have too many resources, women too few, hence prostitution.

LassOfFyvie

"It isn't consent if you would not touch the other person with a barge pole unless money was involved."

The two girls who I mentioned would not have been involved with various racing drivers or motorcycle racers, if those men had not been rich and showered them with gifts

Prositution - engaging in sexual activity in exchange for payment.
In the horrific child abuse cases in Rotherham and the like, the young girls were groomed by men showering gifts on them, not giving them money.

In the horrific child abuse cases in Rotherham and the like, the young girls were groomed by men showering gifts on them, not giving them money

Money or gifts. Seems to amount to the same thing to me.

Why are you making a distinction?

I wonder if the Orange President gives his wife money?

...or gifts?

Goodness knows what he's trying to say. It comes across as him saying that the women in his racing example and the girl victims in the Rotherham case are all prostitutes, selling sex.

assassinated

Yeah thats the vibe im getting

I dont like it

We are only a hop skip and a jump away from saying beautiful women who marry ugly rich men are prostitutes...which is a particular favourite of my dads

Why not go the whole way and say that probably all women are prostitutes, given you can't be entirely sure of the motivations behind them having sex...

Grim.

assasinated

Not much of a further stretch once we go past non-working wives are prostitutes

My dad doesnt do that one

Why not go the whole way and say that probably all women are prostitutes, given you can't be entirely sure of the motivations behind them having sex...

A lot of men unashamedly believe this and will say up front that all women are whores and all men pay for sex, just that the payments vary.

Viewing women as objects and sex as transactional poisons their entire worldview to the point they are unable to conceive of real sexual intimacy. I would almost feel sorry for them if their views weren't so deeply harmful to women.

In the horrific child abuse cases in Rotherham and the like, the young girls were groomed by men showering gifts on them, not giving them money.

Do your research. They were raped.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-45980210

Rape is the tool men use to coerce women into prostitution. Rape destroys women and girls' boundaries and terrorises them so they can be easily used sexually by many men.

Why the heck would a man decide to drag up a two year old thread to try to convince feminists why it's ok that he buys sex? Grim

I haven't come across the "feminists are religious, social conservatives " argument before. It's barking

"Feminists are aligned with the right wing" has been going on since Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon created the Anit-Porn Ordinance in the early 1980s. It's propaganda put out by PR companies employed by the porn industry to discredit feminists who were threatening their business and their abuse of women. It's been remarkably successful because its echoes are still being heard today.

Men will use any tactic they can think of to protect their interests.

If the woman is underage, addicted to drugs, trafficked, and/or so economically impoverished they have no alternative means to get money when selling sex, then consent is wholly undermined. And my view is that the great majority of prostituted women are in one or more of these categories. So the liberal argument doesn’t hold for me.

"Feminists are aligned with the right wing" has been going on since Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon created the Anit-Porn Ordinance in the early 1980s. It's propaganda put out by PR companies employed by the porn industry to discredit feminists who were threatening their business and their abuse of women.

How would calling something right-wing discredit someone, or an ideology? It only discredits that ideology if it's put to someone who makes a deliberate and intentional point of adopting any and all ideologies which are anti-right wing (which is just silly; why would anyone allow labels like "right wing" and "left wing" to determine which ideas they follow?)

Given that the overwhelming majority of right wing people, and right wing political parties, have absolutely no problem with being called right wing, then calling a feminist or a feminist movement right wing would do absolutely nothing to discredit the feminist movement in their eyes. In fact, the opposite true; the political right normally tries to discredit feminism by calling it left wing! And Certainly, the DUP has absolutely zero problem with anti-porn and anti-prostitution laws being described as right wing.

I haven't come across the "feminists are religious, social conservatives " argument before. It's barking grin

The reason why it's barking is because you misquoted what I said.

What I said was;

1. Some feminists have socially conservative views.
2. Some feminists and religious people often say the same things regarding sex work (I pointed out that the quote from Pope Francis could just as easily have come from a feminist opposed to sex work).

I did not say "feminists are religious, social conservatives."