So, the sex "work" "debate"

[FizzyDizzy121]

Having looked through a lot of older threads here, I'm asking for some help.

Do you have a DP or family member that you fundamentally disagree with on a topic as black and white (to me) as sex "work"?

In my younger years, I was very much in favour of choice feminism, including in areas such as prostitution. I believed that the pushback was motivated by our issues around sex and that if a woman (usually) wants to run a business that way, supply and demand right? I did argue for better protections, H&S involvement etc.

Now, my whole approach changed a few years back. Buying consent makes me very, very uneasy and I would argue is a form of coercion/distress rather than freely given. Men (usually) who "visit" prostitutes are having sex with someone they KNOW wouldn't have sex with them if there wasnt money involved which is dodgy on so many grounds.
And all that is before we get to the amount of assaults, trafficking etc involved.

My DP is pretty left leaning (as am I) and views all work as unjust. Humans shouldn't have to be coerced to do labour in order to pay for essentials like shelter or food. And he sees sex "work" as within this bracket. Its exploitation but not any different than a retail worker for example. He says he'd be happy for his relative to be involved in sex "work", he argues the money changing hands is not buying the woman but the labour of the woman (I.e. the sex) for a set amount of time.

How do you respond to such thinking? Does it impact show you think of the other person?

Any thoughts/comments gratefully received

DH and I had the worst fallout we've ever had a few months into our serious relationship (We've been married 11 years now) about lapdancing and strippers. Back then he defended his decision to visit clubs when he was single and also on stag dos and work jollies when he wasn't single, and I just couldn't believe his stance. I objected on intellectual grounds, i.e. how can an intelligent person not see the damage that patronising those clubs causes to the pursuit of equality between the sexes, but he assumed my argument was purely moralistic (I.e. I was being a prude) or inspired by jealousy. I think he'd see it differently now and I very much doubt he's been anywhere like that since, but your OP just reminded me about it.

@chickenyhead

Yes it made me feel sick too.

I read a compilation of 'reviews' on punters net. There were plenty of men who suspected the women were being forced to work as prostitutes - but they all still had sex with them.
One man described how a woman was wincing with pain as he had vaginal sex with her. So he withdrew and got her to give him oral sex instead. Bet he went away thinking he was a real kind hearted angel too.

@blindinglyobviouslight

Oh god.

Who would do this to an equal human being. Nobody i would want to know.

Nor me. I couldn't be in a relationship with a man who supported prostitution.
It shows an attitude to sex and to women that would make him deeply unattractive to me.

I'm not sure about all the fancy arguments around consent/work etc etc. For me the equation is simple, does it cause harm? I think in too many instances the answer is yes it does, it may be actual physical damage, or psychological but it doesn't matter. Therefore I don't think we should as a society allow one person to enact harm on another.

Now I appreciate that invites the whole happy hooker brigade to pipe up, but given that any given any given punter has no way of knowing if their chosen prostitute is one that will suffer harm from the transaction we still shouldn't allow it.

I think the moral focus should always be on the people who are harmed in any given situation, no matter that they are in the minority or not. So in this case the right of a happy hooker to sell her body is outweighed by concerns of the suffering individual who enters into it out of coercion or financial hardship.

For me the equation is simple, does it cause harm? I think in too many instances the answer is yes it does, it may be actual physical damage, or psychological but it doesn't matter. Therefore I don't think we should as a society allow one person to enact harm on another.

But then you need to ask how to reduce that harm, and the answer may not be the obvious one.

Alcohol inarguably causes major harm to society, through addiction and domestic violence and other ways. However, attempts to outlaw it (see America of the 1920s) ended up increasing the harm instead of reducing it. I'd argue the same is true for many drugs currently outlawed.

Many Brits in the early 20th century saw abortion as immoral and harmful, including many early feminists. But it was eventually realised that illegality wasn't stopping abortions but making them more dangerous.

Driving prostitution underground may have the impact of making it even more unpleasant and dangerous than it has to be.

Dread I agree re harm minimisation.

But we're in a position where two socially, economically and culturally fairly similar European countries have gone for a nice pair of experiments to see the results. Sweden went for the Nordic model - decriminalise prostitutes, criminalise the punters, at about the same time Germany went for complete decrim.

I think it's fair to say that while the Nordic model isn't perfect, it has brought about a sharp drop in trafficking and exploitation. Germany on the other hand is a disaster. Trafficking has sky rocketed, mega brothels treat prostitutes as "independent contractors renting space" (so none of the promised benefits of decrim like health insurance) such that typically women are onto about their 6th customer every evening before they break even on the room hire, the price of a BJ on the streets has fallen below the cost of a big Mac, there are drive through brothels in autobahn restplatz, parts of eg Hamburg are now no-go areas for women (bit like Holbeck).

Whatever harm reduction looks like, complete decrim certainly isn't the way to go.

I do think of all the approaches to date, the Nordic model is the best - but it must be supplemented by a decent welfare system and help with exit strategies.

Both are coerced.

I find your belief that you have won the argument laughable.

But I am sure that you don't really care what anyone else thinks anyway.

BTW, the decent thing to do, when presented with someone who is in such poverty, is to help them, not consider whether you could benefit from their predicament.

I need to go and wash myself in bleach after listening to your sleaze. If I could block you, I would.

You could just give her the money. It doesn’t make sense that you can’t afford to give her the money unless she sucks you off.

I'll concede that in itself the argument might have some merit. However, there is no consistency to that. Take mining for example, it's a dangerous job, often causing harm (albeit less frequently nowadays), yet we allow people to willingly become miners. Same with many other forms of manual labour, from working on oil rigs to firefighting

So you might say, well true that, but in order for the world to function, we need labourers, even those who risk their lives doing their jobs. To that I counter, what about boxing, MMA, extreme sports, rugby, stunt actors and much more. Why do we allow people to put themselves at risk of harm solely for our entertainment?

I'm so bored of the "well we allow other workers to do dangerous and/or unpleasant things" argument. Of course we do. Even you can see these jobs happen because they make society better or safer or just simply run more smoothly.

So far as your "counter" all of these activities are regulated and monitored. None of them required orifices to wanked into.

Well, this make sex seem less enjoyable and more like a chore if this the attitude men have.

Do you also pay women to pretend they love you too? Or pay them that they enjoy having a conversation with you?

@StamfordHill If you’d like a homeless woman to give you a blow job so that she can get £20 from you, you’re exploiting a desperate vulnerable woman, (as you could just give the money to her but instead you want her to perform a sex act in return which you know she will as she’s desperate) and believe me she isn’t giving you a blowie voluntarily she’s doing it because you've given her no other option, hence she’s being coerced. .

Let's use the same scenario just with a different service. An able bodied man in need knocks in my front door and asks for £20, but I'm not inclined to give them. So they offer to tidy my garden - roughly 2 hours of work - for £20

Would I be scum for accepting their offer?

I see none of the arguments on this thread against prostitution have penetrated (deliberate choice of words there)

Stamford just to check in case my memory is wonky.

I seem to remember you believe that any sex outside marriage is immoral, is that right?

It's important because if my memory is right, then it's an important piece of info to your posts.

I may be wrong of course in which case sorry!

If the homeless man offers a BJ for the £20 then the same applies then.

You want to help him, he's offered you a service. You've said that's a service you're interested in paying for. Off round the corner to an alleyway you go and he can get on his knees.

That's the correct comparator.

Tbh I'm tired of men saying it's a service like any other. It never seems to occur to them that there might be a reason that so many women have quite different views on this than them.

One possibility is that women when thinking automatically put themselves in the position of the prostitute. With for most of us an understanding of the dangers of heterosexual sex for us. As almost always the smaller weaker person, with an understanding of what men can be like and do, and risks related to injury due to penetration, pregnancy etc.

Men seem to put themselves in the position of the punter and have very little empathy and don't even try to understand what it's like for the woman.

This shows up well when men are asked if they would do it that say of course how great to get paid to fuck women. They very rarely think of them being the one being fucked by a much larger man.

The other thing that annoys me is the refusal to see that having men see women and girls as potentially purchasable commodities affects women and girls who are not selling sex. You still get asked.

And it's unpleasant to be asked because it means the man has looked at you as a selection of fuckable holes.

How would ordinary men react to random massive blokes coming up to them and offering them money for a fuck. I don't think they'd like it, no matter what they say.

Very different to saying oh do you want to earn some money doing my garden :/

I assume men who say that don't really believe it, it's just an exercise in intellectual wankers and winding women up. If there are ones who do, genuinely see no difference between working as a gardener and working getting penetrated, then that's a bit worrying.

Wankery not wankers

If you wouldn’t let strangers penetrate your mouth/anus/vagina in exchange for money then you have no place suggesting anyone else should either.

..sums it up for me.

This is Mumsnet.

Someone thinks they're on Pimpsnet.

@StamfordHill, if you are willing to spend £20 on a bj but not as charity to help a woman to roof over her head for one night, then you are a dick.

You obviously have the money, the £20. You are just unwilling to give it and think that one has to work for it. Basically enacting what you are saying is so awful - nit just buying consent but actually saying that you can’t get anything wo working first.
Basically you would be saying that society is awful because it forces one to work and buys consent through money. And at the same time you are refusing someone the opportunity to get money wo working, regardless of the circumstances. Because one has to work to get money....

Obviously having a kind heart and compassion for someone is lost in you.

You know, you can argue all you like @Stamfordhill but everyone knows what kind of men defend the rights of other men to abuse prostituted women.

They are rape apologists, every last one of them. They despise women and see them as sub human.

I wouldn’t even be friends with someone who promoted the abuse and trafficking of women and children, let alone be married to one.

Op you might think this is a fun and cool intellectual debate with your DP but this is real life for many women and girls. Their suffering is wank fodder for you.