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

I'd be happy to see paying for sex a criminal act.

I wouldn't want it 'banned' as it would end up in the women (men, girls, boys) being on the wrong end of the law and an easier target. Society is very keen to look anywhere except the men.

Anyway from another thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4075131-More-Holbeck-managed-prostitution-news-Schoolchildren-approached

No shocker there from me at least so not sure why it's being reported as a big surprise.

First of all please educate yourselves on street vs indoor these two groups have very different needs and health issues.

RTFT

I would prefer to have a society a society where buying access to another person's orifices was seen as grim. Men who paid for sex used to be seen as sad weirdos. Now it's been/ being mainstreamed. Different countries have very different views on it. A social view. Social views can be changed.

Normalising men buying sex has an impact across society. How can it not.

In the article I just linked where in Holbeck men are approaching schoolgirls. That's not a crime surely? It's fairly common, or at least used to be in areas known for prostution. I've been approached.

And a man walking up to you and asking if you're working is simply not the same as someone offering you to do some gardening work or whatever. No matter what some on this thread say.

If course if it's just standard work then where's the harm in asking.

And a society where women and everyone didn't end up in a position where sex work was a way to keep going.

UC meant many women turned to prostitution. It's not something anyone should ever feel they have no choice but to do.

In the article I just linked where in Holbeck men are approaching schoolgirls. That's not a crime surely? It's fairly common, or at least used to be in areas known for prostution. I've been approached

It is a crime. As it ought to be.

Kerb Crawling”Relevant Law

Section 51A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003(as amended bySection 19 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009) creates a summary-only offence for a person in a street or public place to solicit another for the purpose of obtaining a sexual service. The reference to a person in a street or public place includes a person in a motor vehicle in a street or public place.

This replaces the offences of kerb crawling and persistent soliciting under Sections 1 and 2 of theSexual Offences Act 1985. The amendment removes the requirement to prove persistence. This enables an offender to be prosecuted on the first occasion they are found to be soliciting, without the need to prove persistent behaviour, or that the behaviour was likely to cause annoyance or nuisance to others.

That includes just asking?

I thought it had to be in a car for some reason!

Can't imagine the police would've been very interested if I'd reported it though.

In Holbeck they weren't interested in a woman being abducted and raped iirc

I think people need to ask sex workers what they need...

They need to get out of prostitution.

Duh.

I don't fancy being sodomised for £50...

Ahh! I see now.

Prostitutes fancy being sodomised.

(Is your name Greg Clarke by any chance?)

I don'tconsent. They do. Theyconsentto supplying sexual services for money

When in a hole, stop digging.

You sound worse with every statement.

You sound worse with every statement.

😂

They don't fancy it either, Stamford.

That's the whole bloody point.

You haven't said yet whether my memory is correct, that you see all sex outside marriage as immoral. Is that correct? If so it is pertinent to the discussion I think.

Ahhh so what you are saying is that actually punters are in fact doing these women a massive favour by paying them to penetrate them. In fact these men are carrying out an altruistic act by paying women for sex because these women can then afford to eat.

And as these women want to sell their bodies then it’s all ok then.

If you really truly want to have empathy with women then go back through this thread and actually read every single word of it, especially the report by the gynaecologist and imagine that is your mother/sister/daughters body that is being spoken about.

There are things that you cant consent too and the exchange of money makes no difference to that. Look at case law around sport or sadomasochism for instance. The things you cant consent to tend to be around things that cause harm at a society level or things that cause harm to an individual or things you lack capacity to consent for.

'I've ignored you till now because my personal beliefs about sex within and without marriage are totally irrelevant to this debate.'

It is highly relevant- because on the previous thread- and the reason I remember it. Is that if you do indeed view all sex outside marriage as immoral then- as you hinted on that other thread- your view of prostition and casual sex or sex with partners when not married means that there isn't really much difference between them. Both actions are immoral (wrong) and the fact of money changing hands is therefore neither here nor there really.

I can't be bothered to dig out that thread but the reason I have been going on about it. Is that on the other thread it was clear that your views on morality around any sex outside marriage kind of skewed the prostution question entirely.

We're one of the richest countries in the world.

If men feel it's preferable to keep prostitutes freely available and pretty affordable rather than thinking about why are they in this position and how can it be fixed (mental health/ drug addiction/ welfare state etc) then that says an AWFUL LOT doesn't it.

Consent really should be on the school curriculum. As should poverty. And objectification.

Having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you and is only doing so out of inducement, is wrong.

Being so poor, or mentally fucked up that offering sex for that inducement, well that is understandable and a sad reflection on a society that allows people to suffer being in such a vulnerable position.

You think that when men pay for prostitutes, their primary goal is to give (or receive) HIV, herpes, prolapses and hip displacement?

This is a painfully stupid comment. These are consequences of having repeated unwanted sex, that the the women's bodies (and minds) are not aroused to receive, and the sex is with people who do not care one shit about the woman's wellbeing. Look, the author outlines all this quite clearly but you are have consciously chosen to ignore it as this comments shows:

You seem to have a really clear idea of the author's intentions Yes I do. Because she outlines them quite clearly. . such as here In my view, neither the years not the two laws have changed anything about the health damage and the physical damage the women have been suffering from, then and now
And here The effects on their psyche, the traumatizing, is often even deeper, longer lasting, and harder to treat in comparison to the physical damage And here The system of prostitution is contemptuous of women and of humanity, built on exploitation and cruelty, and it is mostly about exertion of power by men and about a maximum of profits. Only the abolishment of this system can be the solution!

But if you want to think she is talking about the normal consequences of sex that women normally receive, that it normal to see in gynea clinics and is not specific to prostitutes then you couldn't more clearly out yourself as a self-deluding ideologue. You use an article a woman has written and explicitly says is about exceptional experiences for a particular group of women, and then claim ' nah, what she really meant is all that shit is normal in normal relationships.' You really are transparent in your motivations when you so obviously re-interpret a very clear communication.

But thanks for letting us all know that you think damaged hips and your partner puking in revulsion after having sex with you is normal in consensual sex between partners. You should put that in your dating profile.

Ahhh so what you are saying is that actually punters are in fact doing these women a massive favour by paying them to penetrate them

yes, give Stamford his due - he has been pretty consistent in his view that punters are charity donors.

@Gurufloof
I'm sorry you appear to be saying it's all ok because MOST prostitutes dont do anal?
And its waaaay more likely for the drug addict prostitutes to be raped, and that's ok?

Is that really what your saying? I cant quite believe it, think I must have got the wrong end of it.

If you read Paid For by Rachel Moran she said that she never did anal sex. This is important because people say that a prostitute has to do everything the man wants.

The only way to help drug addicts is to have outreach workers who get to know them and gain their trust, encouraging them to go for rehab. Also a methadone script can help. Police action isn't going to solve the problem.

In Sweden under the Nordic model no man has been imprisoned for paying for sex but women are still arrested, even though the Nordic model is supposed to decriminalize prostitutes.