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

So far I've argued - successfully I think - that sex is a service that can be sold just like any other service can be sold

You really haven't. You have completely ignored the physical, emotional and psychological impacts of sex work, and the dangers of sex work, all of which are unique to the nature of sex work. It genuinely isn't like any other work. But men who want to use prostitutes have to pretend that it is, so that they can justify getting blow jobs from desperate women. What you are doing is called 'Denial of Victim'. It is a psychological device used by people engaging in acts they know are socially aberrant.

Men who use prostitutes are the lowest of the low.

Sad, pathetic, inadequate losers.

So far I've argued - successfully I think - that sex is a service that can be sold just like any other service can be sold

You are delusional.

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

Aside from any aspect of danger do men like Stamford and OP's partner have no conception of how awful it must be performing such intimate acts with a person you're not sexually/physically attracted to?

I don't know if this is true but I have a theory that humans actually are hardwired for monogamy in the sense that out of the millions of people available we have a physical spark for only a very small number.

I am firmly heterosexual but even in my wilder , younger days there were very few men I was sexually attracted to. There were and still are men who are kind, decent, funny, even objectively good looking but there's no sexual attraction . And then of course there are the smelly, dirty, and otherwise repulsive men.

So far I've argued - successfully I think - that sex is a service that can be sold just like any other service can be sold

You are delusional

Quite. The comparison of high status alpha male jobs like firefighting, boxing etc., to women letting men use their bodies, is not credible. .
Men get status from these jobs - they are highly regulated with excellent safety measures despite the dangers (remembering those dangers make them high status, exciting and desirable jobs). This is simply not comparable to a women at risk of being beaten up, raped, regularly having intimate injuries, contracting HIV. It shows how weak the defence of prostitution is that you need to make such clearly false comparisons, which show a complete lack of understanding of the reality of prostitution. Not to mention the emotional/ psychological dangers, given prostitution is well-researched as to the harm it causes, unlike the psychological benefits of the typically male jobs Stamford mentions.

Your arguments are weak.

Err... Sorry, O.P, I possibly don't understand, but your starting point is incomprehensible to someone who applies logical thought......

You unhesitatingly believe everything the people you describe as crackheads tell you? What is more, you believe giving cash to a junkie will be spent on the purpose a clear thinking person might choose?

You truly believe everyone who ever claims to be street homeless is street homeless? You truly believe if they say they need money for a certain purpose, it must be true? Are you Tony Blair? He believed that by hurling blank cheques at breeding females, he could "eliminate child poverty". (There again, he also believed that by sending the majority of children to university and giving them degrees, the superior earning power of a degree would be enjoyed by most of the population, leaving just those he regarded as the knuckle dragging non-academic peasants to clean their houses and fix their electricity and their imported luxury cars) He also believed going to war was a great idea.

What do you believe a junkie, mum or not, will prioritise with every bit of income she can get? Adding together as much as she can get from benefits, plus as much as she can get from begging, and plus from telling hard luck stories, and conning gullible lady bountifuls handing out charity, plus as much as she can get from selling promised sex to gulllible punters, or from redistributing drugs, and from pickpocketing, and from 'rolling the marks'( i.e. robbing or luring to be mugged the sucker men who think they will get sex), plus the income from shoplifting to order, plus anything else?

Do you think she will prioritise a safe clean warm home for the child she will keep clean, suitably clothed and fed with nourishing meals?

Do you also believe in fairies? Ghosts? Santa Clause? Flat Earth? Politicians?.

Is that rant supposed to be the case for prostitution?

@IwishNothingButTheBestForYou2

Is that rant supposed to be the case for prostitution?

I've no idea what was meant to be. It is addressed to the OP but was referring to points which Stamford made , not the OP.

It's worse than Stamford who did at least get the point a woman might by desperate circumstances resort to prostitution.

His response to the point about middle/upper class women choosing it as a "career" route is that this is entirely due to the stigma around the job not the job itself

It's been a long thread but I assume someone demolished this pile of utter codswallop?

So far I've argued - successfully I think - that sex is a service that can be sold just like any other service can be sold, and when you enter into a consensual transaction with a sex worker, you are not acting without consent.

You have not argued successfully.

What's that saying about the confidence of a mediocre man?

I once started dating a man who I subsequently discovered was actually talking about a prostitute when he was talking about his last girlfriend. He had paid her to spend the night with him once or twice a month. It soon became clear the arrangement he expected from me was identical but without the cash. I got a glimpse of how he treated her. As time passed I found out he was actually still married (living abroad) and had been using prostitutes all his adult life. He liked to have several free or paid girlfriends on the go at all times and tells his wife she's imagining things if she discovers clues.

Dumped him obviously. It had clearly affected his attitude to women and his behaviour and the marriage his wife has is a complete mirage.

Be wary of men who are pro prostitution. They are the punters and you may be married to one.

He

It isn't true that to be a prostitute you have to have a man's body fluids in your mouth. Most practice safe sex. So to say that it's the only job where you have to have body fluids in your mouth is wrong. It's not a requirement of the job.

And how many street prostitutes/prostitutes in bargain basement massage parlours with bars on the windows have a choice as to whether the punter wears a condom, do you think?

So far I've argued - successfully I think - that sex is a service that can be sold just like any other service can be sold

hahahahahahahaha yeah you keep thinking that

deary me....

still threads like this are always a good reminder of how some men see women

@Kit19

So far I've argued - successfully I think - that sex is a service that can be sold just like any other service can be sold

hahahahahahahaha yeah you keep thinking that

deary me....

still threads like this are always a good reminder of how some men see women

It's the old, old gag: Never play chess with a pigeon. It craps all over the board then struts around with its chest puffed up claiming it's won.

You think that men who enjoy having sex with prostituted women are fussed about safer sexual practices? Particularly in the case of oral sex when the risk to the man of STI’s is not high, in fact men having sex with women are much less likely to contract anything from women than women having sex with men are from men.

It isn't true that to be a prostitute you have to have a man's body fluids in your mouth. Most practice safe sex. So to say that it's the only job where you have to have body fluids in your mouth is wrong. It's not a requirement of the job

Errr and you post "most" so its true that some have to have male body fluids in their mouth. Aside from prostitution being all kinds of wrong, no one should ever HAVE to take someone else's bodily fluids in them in any orifice.

The throw away, usable manner in which those considering prostitution to be work, view the inside of womens bodies, is disrespectful to rape victims everywhere.

Rape carries a longer sentence and is not subject to the statute of limitations in the UK. every other type of assault (excepting fatality) is subject to the statute of limitations.

Why is it that rape is considered different do you think? Should we ask victims who have suffered varying types of assault? Which one destroyed their sense of self? Which one made them feel totally powerless? Which one killed their desire to live?

If you have ever had the misfortune to be raped, believe me, you know the difference. You know that to be willing to sell that for something as common as money, is because you are either desperate and have no other way out, or you are so damaged by life already that you place no value in yourself.

Lots of rape survivors become highly promiscuous, in the belief that they are indeed choosing those partners. They aren't and each man who uses that vulnerable woman to satisfy his own needs, further erodes her sense of self. Until she feels worthless, dead inside.

Let's not continue to pretend that this is consent. It isnt. You and any human being can tell by looking in someone's eyes, whether they are truly consenting.

Consent to sex cannot be purchased.

If you agree that that is fine, then you need to make the argument that sexual services are a special case, which you haven't yet done.

It's already widely accepted that paid for sex is a unique category with enormous difficulties. No one gives a shit about convincing you as you are primarily concerned with the maintenance of the supply side.

I find it odd that some men think so little of sex that they are determined it is the same as clearing leaves but at the same time value it so highly that they are prepared to buy it from strangers who are only having it because their consent has been bought.

Their sex lives must be really awful.