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.

It discredits feminists with the left given that the left is supposed to stand up for the vulnerable, the dispossessed and oppressed. Sadly the left is male-dominated, so men's sex rights trump women's rights not to be sexually exploited by men, A huge failure on the part of leftists I would say.

I didn't think I'd have to spell that out as it's pretty obvious, but then I didn't think I'd have to spell out the power and economic disparities between men and women which make prostitution possible.

One interesting thing is that the right wing has picked up radical feminist arguments against prostitution like you say for example that Pope Francis calls it the torture of women, quite a difference stance from the previous religious view that prostituted women were "sinners" with nothing whatsoever to say about the torturers (johns). If Pope Francis can see it why can't you?

should have added "the left should be feminism's natural allies given that the left...."

It discredits feminists with the left given that the left is supposed to stand up for the vulnerable, the dispossessed and oppressed.

This is begging the question. People on the right would argue that the right wing is better for the vulnerable, dispossessed and oppressed, and that it's the left wing which oppresses people. You are pre-supposing that "left = good, right = bad" and automatically taking issue with any argument that contradicts this.

but then I didn't think I'd have to spell out the power and economic disparities between men and women which make prostitution possible.

I'm all for reducing poverty among women. Reducing poverty among women means that women who don't want to be sex workers can stop selling sex. I don't think anyone would argue with you that reducing poverty among women is a bad thing.

Pope Francis calls it the torture of women, quite a difference stance from the previous religious view that prostituted women were "sinners" with nothing whatsoever to say about the torturers (johns). If Pope Francis can see it why can't you?

Pope Francis's comment about tortured women was regarding women who find themselves in a situation in which they don't have a choice. I don't think Pope Francis would hesitate to call a woman a sinner for having sex with a man she wasn't married to, if she had the choice not to do so.

Some feminists and religious people often say the same things regarding sex work
Some atheists and religious people say the same thing about treating 9thers with respect.

Some children and religious people have the same views on Jesus.

Some cats and religious people both like the sleep.

Some flies and religious people both eat jam.

What kind of point is it that you are trying to make?

Reducing poverty among women means that women who don't want to be sex workers can stop selling sex
It's not a pure financial transaction. As eryth says, there's a power dimension too.

I don't understand why anyone would want sex with someone who didn't want them or find them attractive. That seems soul destroying to me. It makes me think that these men must not be able to see women as people, that they can just discount the fact the women aren't sexually interested during sex. Ugh.

Some actually get off on the fact that women(/men/children) are not into it. They get off on the sadism of making someone do something degrading and unpleasant that they don't want to do- like bullying. It is legal, easily procured, sexual abuse.

What kind of point is it that you are trying to make?

Surely the point is that religious people and feminists make similar sounding points about prostitution but have arrived at their conclusions from completely different routes and beliefs.

Don't think it's a big mystery. People want sex and are prepared to pay for it. Other people want money and are prepared to have sex to get it. Put the two together and you have an entire industry. Ultimately it's two private consenting individuals and society has no right to judge, just like you have no right to judge what two gay people do.

In the past when homosexuality was still seen as taboo we had all this rubbish about how it "degrades the fabric of society" and "instills harmful values and morals". You see the same thing now regarding prostitution, with people claiming it somehow affects society and gives people the wrong morals. But ultimately it's just people trying to impose their own moral values on other people. I look at it this way, if you wouldn't judge to consenting gay people for being gay, why the fuck would you judge a consenting prostitute and her client? It's just bigoted, you should be more tolerant of how others live their private lives.

And dont even start on the factually untrue, lies and falsehoods like "oh it makes people value woman less". That is a lie, it is a proven falsehood.

Prove it then. Go on. Proved by whom? When?

Isn't it true that far more women go to church now than men? Also, feminists are women. So as women, the same visceral abhorrence to women being used as living toilets for men to jiz into will be felt. Men won't share it in the same way. It is more instinctive for a man to see a woman in prostitution as a soiled, dirty, sinful place to put your dick.

Men will be able to empathetically 'feel' the men's perspective in the way women can't, so they will tend to see things from the punter/abuser/rapist''s perspective more, and of course it is vice versa with women and men.

If a woman chooses to sell her body for money, and a man chooses to spend his money buying sex, then isn't that both their own choices? I don't understand why people feel they have a right to judge that. If it's two consenting adults, then what is the problem? Would you also object to two consenting gay people having sex?

If a man chooses to sell his kidney and a woman chooses to buy it - is it just an issue involving two consenting adults or is within a wider context of social inequality - where the poor can get horribly exploited to benefit the rich?

We are not allowed to sell our organs for a reason.

Ultimately it's two private consenting individuals and society has no right to judge
It's not private (It's cruisers on the street, it's a mega brothel next door, it's all over the internet),
it's not consenting (coerced by drugs, trafficed, options in life, Hobson's choice )
and am only judging the one doing the coercing.

You don't tell me to look away coz it's non of my business.

It is interesting that certain posters come out of the woodwork on the prostitution threads. You might not have one for ages, but as soon as you do they turn up. They are old school - using Web alerts, etc.

I bet they are also the type to be updating Wikipedia.

ILuvBirdsEye you say you only judge those doing the coercing. I wonder what your view would be about this. I go to a strip club sometimes. There is no coercion involved and the dancers are all doing it of their own free will (they do some checks on that). I asked my regular dancer out of interest one time about what she does the job and she said it's because it can be pretty good money especially when the businessmen types buy the VIP room, and because it beats stacking shelves. Is she in the wrong for giving people lap dances in return for money rather than stacking shelves in return for money? Am I wrong for buying dances? It is a genuine question and I genuinely want to know what you think.

AR are you incapable of seeing a wider context?

WeRiseUp you made a good comment about not being allowed to sell organs, and for what it's worth I agree with that point. But isn't the same true in every job, that the rich can exploit the poor. In the shelf stacking example, an employee is having to do certain things, to use their body in a certain way, in return for the company paying them money. Instead of dancing around a pole or having sex, they are having to move around a warehouse and a shopfloor for long hours at a time. What is the fundamental difference when the work being done in return for money is of a sexual nature?

It is creepy when dudes who go to lapdancing clubs and use prostituted women hang out in the feminism section of a parenting site called mumsnet.

Why are they even here?

the rich can exploit the poor. In the shelf stacking example

Stacking shelves is not so bloody terrible is it, for a person with no qualifications?

There is a reason to get qualifications and move up in the world.

So is my regular dancer wrong for selling me dances? Am I wrong for buying them? I agree with your argument that it's wrong when the sex worker is forced into doing it, but I think you are wrong when it comes to workers who are doing it of their own free choice. I think if a woman chooses to sell her own body, it's her body and her right to decide that. I don't think you have the right to tell her what she should do with her own body. Does bodily autonomy mean nothing to you?

So is my regular dancer wrong for selling me dances? Am I wrong for buying them?

You are wrong for buying them.

You should spend your money in ways that do not degrade and exploit women.

If you think that shelf stacking is better than doing sex work then fair enough, but that's a subjective opinion and other people may feel different. The one I told you about about the club I go to is pretty much of the opinion that while she COULD go and get a shelf stacking job or bar work, she prefers doing this instead. So there's no coercion, and it's her body, so why is her choices about what to do with her body any of your business?

Ok so if the dancer feels they aren't being degraded, but you feel they are, who is correct? Who gets the ultimate say on whether an activity is degrading or not?