When we talk about prostitution, we should focus on the buyers

[Clymene]

I was just reading a couple of tweets on Twitter about the images that the MSM uses in articles about prostitution - often women's bare legs and high heels.

The author suggested it would be better to have photos of the buyers instead so she linked to this blog by a German photographer who photographed and interviewed Johns in a brothel in Stuttgart

http://www.bettinaflitner.de/index.php?id=1270&L=1

She also links to a website with quotes from over 350 sex buyers from a cross Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I haven't read this because I don't have the stomach today (warnings about graphic descriptions of sexual violence).

dieunsichtbarenmaenner.wordpress.com/menu/

Both have English translations. The reality vs the 'sex work is work' position is pretty stark.

Pickette said:

"The lengths you've gone through to ask those as though women don't have autonomy is concerning. "How will they know a massage went below the belt"? You mean, "how would they know a woman was sexually harassed?" Hopefully the answer is she files a report against him to the police."

This seems to miss the point I was intending to make. Yes, a woman could indeed complain if she didn't like the request. But what if she is willing to provide the service? Or what if she is the one suggesting a "happy ending"?

Can we rely on men to report her to the police rather than going along with the idea?

Even if she did get reported, women aren't supposed to be criminals under this model, so what do you do? Stop her working? But then presumably that means criminal punishment if she continues?

It's just hard to see, without criminal punishment of the woman, or taking away the woman's job, how you effectively stop a woman offering an extra service at the end of a massage.

You are strangely focused on massage.

I know women who do massage. Sports massage etc.

They get men asking. That's not a great question when the man is basically naked and on a bed thing and you're alone with him. And you've been touching his body as per your job.

I don't understand this focus. Men ask. Why not? I say. Because it's not pleasant to be asked if you will perform sex acts for money. Whether it's walking down the street, or performing a massage.

Men are not backward on coming forward on this.

With the massage it's all a bit 'while you're down there'. Massage is a skill that takes time to master.

If a man wants a fuck then there are plenty of adverts etc.

Why are you so focussed on this?

If it's not obviously part of the thing then don't fucking ask. Obviously.

'This seems to miss the point I was intending to make. Yes, a woman could indeed complain if she didn't like the request'

Stop asking random women for sex!!!

I mean. Are you serious?

And again, you have completely missed the point I was making.

Please read the post again if you're interested in it.

Can we rely on men to report her to the police rather than going along with the idea?

I don't think you understand the idea of women not being criminals for offering prostitution.

The man would be at risk of prosecution if he accepted paying for a sex act. He should only be reporting her so she can be offered help to get out of the degrading job.

"I don't think you understand the idea of women not being criminals for offering prostitution."

The very next line after the line you quoted was:

Even if she did get reported, women aren't supposed to be criminals under this model, so what do you do?

So yes, I understand that they aren't supposed to be criminals.

The man would be at risk of prosecution in theory. In practice, how would you stop prostitution without taking steps against the woman or her massage profession? How is it going to work?

If you're a man being prosecuted, well you likely just deny that anything happened other than a massage. Where was the evidence to prosecute in the first place? Unless the man video recorded himself, and the evidence was somehow discovered... (would probably happen sometimes, but rare) or the prostitute decides to give evidence against her customers.... (would that even be enough to prosecute?) in 99.99% of cases there isn't going to be any testimony or usable evidence whatsoever.

Worth dropping this website here again

dieunsichtbarenmaenner.wordpress.com/menu/

Gathering testimonials from Sex buyers in Germany. After they have used the fully legal esatablishments.

The word freequency section is revealling. Sex work is work, just another paid job, doesn't harm women, nothing to see here.

Sorry, clearly going a bit mad. I see it is in the OP. Random mind tangents led me a circular path.

btw it isn't "women for sale". They are selling their services.

No other service provision comes with a substantial risk of pregnancy to the service provider. Any other service provider would be able to use effective protections against bodily fluids to prevent catching STIs. "Selling services" is what I do by going to work, not what a prostituted woman does.

A more accurate analogy would be the punter is renting the woman's body. She gets it back at the end of the punt, but he will have at best incurred wear and (vaginal and anal) tear(s) on her, and at worst caused substantial deliberate damage. Like letting out a flat, the owner still owns the flat but it will always have incurred wear and tear at the end of the lease and, if the owner is unlucky, the renter may have gouged holes in the plasterwork and shat on the carpets.

Of course, the flat analogy breaks down because the prostituted woman can't fix herself by sending the decorators in. Even if she could, she's a person, not property, and deserves more respect than a flat. Which is why no human being should be rentable in this way and we absolutely should be focussing shame and awkward questions on the kind of man who thinks that it's OK to rent a woman's body.