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.

Prostitution is not a job, it's not a "customer service role". Providing access to your body is not the same as working and providing a service or skill.

It's interesting that you don't view prostitution generally as harming anyone, if you're convinced that the prostitute you're imagining is happy and doing it free from any coercion/harmful reason. I think prostitution generally is harmful to everyone, in how it encourages men to view women and the kind of environment it promotes. Never mind the trafficking/pimps/underage victims etc etc that you want to discount.

The German mega brothels and the roadside huts are grim and desperate beyond belief. I can't agree with anyone who thinks that's how our society should be.

It's the oldest job in the book, to be cliche. And you should have been more crude - you are not just providing access to your body (many jobs do that), you are providing access to your genitals, to being penetrated. Because that is the issue, isn't it?

If anything, prostitution harms society as a whole, but not the two people involved, with it's perpetuation of the message "women are sex objects".

But yes, I find it hard to see what is wrong with two consenting adults to exchange sex for money. If some guy goes to a bar, buys a woman drinks and they end up having sex, how different is that? Plenty of guys that would think there is no difference. Personally, I don't know. But I do find it hard to judge people for their choices.

exactly

"But yes, I find it hard to see what is wrong with two consenting adults to exchange sex for money."

Bought consent is not consent. It is a form of financial coercion.

" If some guy goes to a bar, buys a woman drinks and they end up having sex, how different is that?"

I find it depressing that you don't understand the difference. The difference is consent. The "guy" has not bought sex, he bought a drink.

"Bought consent is not consent" - that is an opinion that many people will not share. Could you provide reasoning why you hold that opinion?

If she would not have slept with him otherwise...why is the act of transferring dirty pieces of paper so offensive? What about sugar babies / sugar daddies?

Sadly, some men do think that buying a drink means the woman owes them something in return.

Because it is not freely given consent. The woman would not have sex otherwise.

I would view sugar daddies as a form of prostitution too, if the woman is only having sex to obtain money or gifts.

They do indeed. Personally I did not pay for others on a date for that very reason (although being in a relationship I do now but I feel that's different).

And ABeauty I honestly don't understand. Edit: this is a bit long I think but I am genuinely interested, so would be nice to hear your thoughts.

What is the difference between a woman meeting a man getting aroused and having sex and a woman meeting a man who says hey look I will pay you, do you want to have sex? One reason is "passion" (or what you want to call it) the other is "money". But it's not really money, it's what money can buy, so it could be anything really. Why does consent require "passion"?

If there is some guy asking strangers to do something, they decline and he then offers them money and they do it, were they extorted? Here we also have a case of "not freely given consent".

What about a hypothetical. A woman is approached by another woman who tells her that her employer will pay ten million pounds for sex. And she says yes. Imagine two cases, one the employer is a famous actor whom the woman would have had sex with anyway and two the employer is some repulsive asshole. Would you consider both scenarios the same, as consent not freely given?

If some guy goes to a bar, buys a woman drinks and they end up having sex, how different is that?

I could explain but the fact you ask the question shows you would not understand the explanation.

When you pay your hairdresser are you buying their consent? Afterall they would not freely cut your hair unless you paid them. No you are buying a service. Same with a prostitute-its not her consent that is being purchased it is her service

Oh good grief.

For me the problem with prostitution is that it gives the impression to men, that sex is a basic human right and that a woman's body is an object for consumption.

In your examples of individual scenarios above, if a woman is so desperate for money she will do anything (needs food, to pay the rent, drug addiction etc) is it ethical for a man to exploit that desperation for sex?
How is it any different to the guy paying the homeless guy a tenner to pissed on him?

That article shows that most men give no thought to the woman they are using.

This discussion always focuses on the rights and wrong a of individual transactions, but the fact a man thinks it's ok to purchase sex rather than having a wank indicates something very wrong with how that man sees women.

Lass that is rather patronizing of you. I am not here to troll/provoke you (I am sure you agree I could have done that much better with a lot less effort). Why don't you humor me then? Or read my other post, that wasn't as crude as the bar example.

MrGHardy. Others have already commented on how ridiculous a comparison it is but in case you missed it -The difference is consent. The "guy" has not bought sex, he bought a drink.

I honestly do not understand how anyone could not grasp such a simple concept.

Why don't you humor me then?

Why should I humor you?

Being penetrated repeatedly by multiple men causes bruising, lacerations, and risk of infection. There is an extremely high risk of violence. Then there's the psychological damage. Many women who have worked in prostitution suffer from PTSD. Have you read any serious reports on the effects of prostitution? Or to be crude, let's imagine someone said why don't you let a few men go up your arse every day for cash, it's just a job isn't it?

"In your examples of individual scenarios above, if a woman is so desperate for money she will do anything (needs food, to pay the rent, drug addiction etc) is it ethical for a man to exploit that desperation for sex?"

I am sorry but this victim scenario does not work. We do not live in a world anymore where women have no possibility of income. In fact, did you see the recent article in The Economist? For women at the same level, function and company, the gap is now only 0.8% and overall 26.8% (Germany btw only 15% as it is much less unequal than Britain meaning the gap between the low earners, more women, and higher earners, more men, is smaller. Interestingly, the gap for same function/level/company is higher in Germany which from a solely public/media based perspective seems true, Germany seems to lag Britain in terms of gender equality initiatives at the high level).

Anyway I digress, I made a hypothetical, and you changed the hypothetical. The ten million part was clearly to show, she isn't doing it to survive, but the sheer amount of money - and let's face it, there will be women who aren't prostitutes who would do it for that much money.

It's actually quite telling that you categorically view prostitutes as victims (of circumstance). Not denying that most are, I am sure that many would scoff at your opinion of them as victims. And maybe simply because you would never do something like that other than if you had to to survive, doesn't mean that all women think like you. I think we can agree that for men, many would do it. And why can't some women be more like men in this regard than most other women? I don't know, but in my opinion, that is not unreasonable at all.

So would you let men have penetrative sex with you for cash? It's just a job, you'd probably make loads of money, if you did enough each day.

It's actually quite telling that you categorically view prostitutes as victims (of circumstance).
No, I categorically view users of prostitutes as scumbags who don't care for the reasons why the woman they are using has chosen to be paid for penetration.

We do not live in a world anymore where women have no possibility of income
This is just bullshit. In large parts of the world people still starve to death. In the UK increasing numbers are using food banks to eat.

Why can't we talk about the punters? That was the point of the OP. What sort of man thinks it's preferable to pay someone who would rather not, to have sex with him? What does that say about his attitudes to women and sex?

Prostitutes have a high risk for PTSD. A high percentage were groomed as children.
So clearly, its not just a job that people do out of choice.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2615337/

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3508959/

Then why respond in the first place Lass?

I have russie, I am aware, I am not for prostitution. However, I do think that one can have a debate about it, and as I have written above, I have some questions which no one is answering, only reverting to the same "what would you do if you would starve otherwise". Yes, you are right, I would not want to do that. So why do some women? Voluntarily? To not live on the street? Might explain why there are so many more men than women on the street as men generally don't have the option of prostitution. However, as I said, I am not talking about such cases.

Bad phrasing - I meant "the west" with that and fair point, however that applies equally to men and women these days.

Because there aren't many men who use prostitutes posting here (if any, I don't think anyone has said they do), so how can you get a good sense, other than from some vocal users on a forum that sound like psychopaths?

What sort of man thinks it's preferable to pay someone who would rather not, to have sex with him? What does that say about his attitudes to women and sex?

That's the interesting question, isn't it?
I don't judge women for prostituting themselves when they need money.

But the punters ... well, they have to be very disgusting. No decent person would get any enjoyment out of sex they know the other person doesn't want, and wouldn't have if they weren't paid for it.

And that's not even getting into the fact that it is renting out a body, which is like organ sale, which is illegal in many countries, with good reason.

Look. You don't need to convince me that prostitution is terrible. I have other questions. If you want to stick more in line with OP, fine, I am out. But don't ignore 90% of my posts and repeat the same argument, one that I even agree with.

It's actually quite telling that you categorically view prostitutes as victims (of circumstance)
No, I categorically view users of prostitutes as scumbags who don't care for the reasons why the woman they are using has chosen to be paid for penetration

I don't categorically see prostitutes as victims. Dervel said a few posts back that he does not identify as a feminist and does not post on here to suck up to women. I don't call myself a feminist either. One does not need to be either a woman or a feminist to think prostitution is incompatible with human dignity.