Prosittution and rape: how men frame women's experiences

[Karabair]

Starting a new thread as a support thread was getting derailed.

It's a simple proposition - sex that a woman doesn't want is rape. Paid sex is unwanted sex, thus rape.

The idea that prostitution can merely be a transaction like any other customer service, comes from men. A woman-centred approach understands the unique experience of having another person's body parts inside your body, how intimate that is, and how violating it is if it's unwanted.

Men have created a world where women very often don't have direct access to resources we're entitled to. Thus they are able to manipulate and control women's behaviour by offering resources in return for being able to sexually harm us. A world in which women were equal in resources to men would be a world without prostitution. It's never a woman's choice, it's a man's choice.

You’re going to have to go to Parliament with this one. It’s not legally rape. Your problem is first and foremost with the law.

The law does need to be changed.

I wouldn't rely on laws that men have created though to understand women's experiences. Men raping their wives in marriage was legal until 1991 in the UK.

The law exists to tell women that they haven't been raped and that rapists are innocent, hence the 6% conviction rate for rape.

There are a depressing amount of threads entitled Was this rape? that pop up with horrifying frequency. The answer is almost always yes, even when the woman posting doesn't feel that she was raped.

A man who knows there is a statistical probability that he is penetrating a woman who is addicted, trafficked or pimped is a rapist. He is. The woman may either choose not to define it like that or be unable to. And she gets to define her experiences herself. That doesn't mean that the man isn't a rapist and feminists can't define him as such.

Yes, its rape.

The man pays money as compensation for the fact that he sticks his penis inside a woman who doesn't want to have sex with him.

Men NEED to frame it as a simple transaction, no different than buying a pint or a newspaper, otherwise they would have to face up to the fact that they abusive arseholes and can pretend they aren't responsible for sex trafficking of women and children etc.
It's why all this "sex work is just work" narrative is only ever pushed on females. Misogynistic bullshit.

Yes, I agree that it's rape. It can be dressed up as just a monetary transaction but the actual truth is that he's using a woman's body to get his orgasm.
He's using her body, he feels entitled to shoot his load into a woman who wouldn't agree to have sex with him unless she was being paid.

It's worth noting that men created two classes of rapeable women - wives and prostituted women. Wives through law, with men having actual conjugal rights over their wives' bodies and prostituted women, who were deemed by men to be "unrapeable". It suited men to have unfettered sexual access to women with no repercussions.

maybe we can take some comfort then from the change in the law in 1991

You're 100% right, Karabair. The fact that it always takes the law a century or so to catch up doesn't mean a crime hasn't happened.

Possibly a minor point: I'd limit the meaning of rape to directly coerced sex, though. One word used for too many different things loses its meaning.

We need a different word, possibly with intensifying suffixes or prefixes, to talk about the many shades of indirect coercion. Social, economic, any kind of power imbalance used to coerce sex, really. Taking a page from the French, "violation" maybe? Prostitution is perviolation.

(I know. Doesn't really work since it's too complicated. A better wordsmith than I am should have at it.)

Rape is sex without consent. Whether it is rape depends on whether the woman consents. There are some prostitutes who claim to have made a choice. Personally, I think that makes no difference as to whether it should be legal to buy sex.

But buying sex means that you don’t care whether there is consent. That makes you equivalent to a rapist as you either know there is no consent or don’t care whether there is.

But not all prostitution is rape according to the legal definition of rape. It’s exploitation but not necessarily rape. Lots of it is rape though.

It's not just men who frame it this way. I have seen posts on here from women whose husbands have cheated saying they would have preferred he cheated with a prostitute as no emotion is involved. However surely sex with a prostitute is worse as it's cheating and rape/exploitation of a woman.

I'd argue the opposite quixote9, naming things for what they are, in this case prostitution being rape, clarifies issues. I think we've been pussyfooting around long enough and we need to start naming accurately the harms men commit against women.

Consent is a funny thing. You don't have to "consent" to something you want, because you want it. That's why I framed rape as sex that a woman doesn't want. You don't need inducements or coercion to have sex you want, sexual attraction, sexual desire and love takes care of that. All missing in prostitution.

But Karabair then many women in long term relationships or marriages would also be experiencing rape. So would teenage girls who sleep with their boyfriends because they hint they will dump them if not. Rape is sex where the woman doesn’t consent and knows she does not consent (unless she is under 13 or lacks mental capacity). There will always be contexts and circumstances that can be said to apply and we never have truly free choices. But to say all prostitution is rape automatically regardless of what the woman herself feels or thinks is patronising. I believe that some rather extreme radical feminists used to say that all heterosexual sex is rape too because men are the oppressor class. I don’t think it helps anyone to dilute what rape means. Not the survivors of rape nor the women who are now told they are rape victims despite not identifying as such.

The actions of men using prostitutes can be labelled as reprehensible without claiming that it is always rape.

Yes, you're using men's framing Pota2. The legal definition, which you're relying on for some reason, was created by men, so of course they aren't going to want to include all their criminal behaviour against women. That's my point. Think about it from a woman's point of view.

Why are women having their bodies sexually used by men with no repercussions for those men? Who does it benefit? It isn't us.

I also think that "it doesn't help rape victims" is a reversal. I'm pretty sure it does help rape victims to name the truth about what was done to them.

No I am not using men’s framing. I see the man as being as culpable as a rapist because he doesn’t know or care whether there is consent.

I am looking at it from the woman’s viewpoint. In a lot of cases it is rape in that there is coercion from pimps or financial desperation. But to say that that is the case in every instance is taking agency away from women. If you are taking the line that they cannot consent then you need to apply your analysis to marriages and other intimate relationships too, often involving severe power imbalances. Why aren’t these automatically rape too?

Karabair so if a prostitute tells you it was by choice (as some of them do say, some on this board), is your response that they don’t have the capacity to consent and are lying to themselves? Someone like Belle de Jour or something (clearly doesn’t represent most prostitutes but sold sex nonetheless).

Rape is also a legal term and your definition doesn’t fit the legal definition.

Rape is a tricky crime because it’s not the act itself that’s the crime- it’s the act plus the lack of consent. With consent, the act of intercourse would not be illegal. So if a woman claims to have consented, how can we say it was rape when a core element is missing.

Attempted rape, maybe. The man is playing Russian Roulette as to whether the woman consent and clearly doesn’t care.

i'd always look at it from the point of view of "is the man a rapist", "is what he's doing rape?" If the man is doing something to a woman she doesn't want, it's his behaviour, agency and choices we have to examine.

So to use your example: Is the teenage boy who threatens and manipulates his teenage girlfriend with dumping her unless she has sex with him, when he knows she doesn't want to, a rapist? Exactly what is wrong with him that he believes his sexual desires trump her bodily integrity and will?

I can see sexual agency being removed from women when men threaten, coerce them, manipulate them or force them into sex they don't want, I don't think it's me doing the removing though. I think the claim of "removing agency from women" is another reversal. If women are having sex they don't want, exactly how much agency do they have?

Consent when money is involved is not consent, it's certainly not wanted sex.

Even the sex pozzies talk about "enthusiastic consent" (something rapists have used against women). How is "you have to pay me before I'll do it", consent, enthusiastic or not. All women in that position are doing is consenting to take the money.

Ask yourself why a man would think his money justifies having sex with a woman who doesn't want to have sex with him. What is he doing to her in that situation?

Its a tricky one. A lot of prostitution is actual rape - in the case of trafficked women - they do not consent on any level.

Some women are coerced into prostitution by pimps - without really knowing hat they're getting themselves into.

A fair few do it to support a drug addiction, or because they have no option.

Men who buy prostitutes kid themselves that they are buying consent - I say it's a lot more complex than that.

The nordic model is the answer - criminalise the punters, decriminalise and offer support to the prostitutes.

(I cannot stand the term sex worker - all it does is support the claim that prostitution is a fair financial transaction - no different to being a hairdresser - only I don't see social concern about the number of women dragged into hairdressing through drug addiction/poverty, and there don't seem to be many hairdressers who pay 60% of their salary to pimps.)

We men objectify women in two major ways, one as sex objects and secondly as child carriers. By making women objects we dehumanise and rob them of agency. The correct (or healthier?) approach would be to recognise women as autonomous self determining agents that we need to harmonise with as opposed to control.

Thing is both sexes wether consciously or unconsciously lean into this, and on an individual level scores of women can benefit from playing the role of object (in either category), and it gets muddied when that is framed as a choice.

In terms of prostitution I really don’t know wether it is by definition a moral violation, but I think it certainly becomes one under the current paradigm where men hoard/generate the majority of resources. Until women claim their inherent liberty and are as a class at a disadvantage it must therefore be exploitative and therefore immoral.

When it comes to rape we can widen the parameters, but I fear you run the risk of diluting the pool so to speak and of say the example of sex with an intoxicated woman being by default a rape, then the same must follow when women sleep with intoxicated men, and yes I am aware that under (UK) law it is impossible for a woman to rape a man, but it would meet the bar for a sexual assault, and then we could very much end up in a tit for tat scenario.

I don’t know how useful this is, but where I am at with it and from observing the philosophical differences that emerge when this topic comes up is the sticking point is coming from does a woman have the capacity to say no to any individual man? So a prostitute may be forced into sleeping with men thanks to poverty, addiction etc etc, but she has (in theory) the right to refuse any individual man who stops his car, turns up at her flat etc. So yes she’s forced into it on a macro level but isn’t compelled to give into to any man who gives her the heebie jeebies. Of course the moment there is a coercive pimp, a punter who refuses to listen or she’s trafficked then yes I’d say it’s a rape then no question. I think this explains why so many people who want to see women better off can end up at loggerheads.

I sympathise as it’s a real uphill battle getting men to consider the wider landscape here as I’ve banged my head against that brick wall more times than I can count, and only rarely do I make any headway. I am broadly speaking liberally minded when it comes to sex, and prostitution, strip clubs, porn etc are all presented as part of this modern liberal sexy lifestyle we’re all supposed to buy into. I’m at a bit of a loss on how to shift men’s attitudes on this.

Pota2 I believe that some rather extreme radical feminists used to say that all heterosexual sex is rape

You believe a lie fabricated by Playboy to protect the porn industry.

Rape cannot just be about the man’s viewpoint though. Attempted rape, yes. Legal rape though is where the woman didn’t consent.

I don’t think you have explained why you confine your analysis to prostitution and almost assume that other than prostitution, women are totally free. That’s not true and surely every sexual act inside eg an abusive relationship would then be rape too because how can consent truly freely be given when you may fear the other person will leave you or assault you or restrict your money if you don’t?

Rape is also a perceived violation of boundaries by the victim. If the victim does not perceive her boundaries to have been violated, how can we call it rape? The most we can call it is attempted rape or ignorance as to whether the woman consents.

But as people have said, the Nordic model criminalises sex buying. It doesn’t call it rape but it does criminalise it. What is the purpose of seeking to distort a term that means something else when it’s likely to be met with resistance by those it seeks to protect? For instance, it would mean that there is no longer a conceptual distinction between a punter who has sex with a prostitute and one who assaults her, rapes her and doesn’t pay (which is a not infrequent occurrence). How will those be distinguished between?

I'm with you on this one.

Too often "choice" feminists divert the discussion into "what precis percentages of prostitutes are choosing to do it versus doing it because of poverty/drugs, how low does the percentage of the latter have to be before we as a society can feel okay about the 'sex industry' [sic] and how do we change legislation to make 'sex work] safer?"

Answers: irrelevant, none, and you're posing the question wrong by treating it like workplace accidents rather than accepting the danger is being posed by the punters themselves.

You're right OP : keep turning the question round.. What sort of man walks into a 'massage parlour' with bars on the windows and a bouncer on the door? One who knows that in all probability the women are coerced. In other words a rapist. What sort of man gets a stoned woman he's just picked up out of the rain in a dirt poor bit of town to give him a BJ for a tenner. He knows she's doing it for her next fix. Again, a rapist.