The amount of women condoning prostitution

[Thatgirl1981]

Well I seen it all now when your told
well maybe they enjoyed seeking explicit pictures on line

and all the young people do it

someone is on drugs is selling pictures of themselves to fund that habit parents are in disparate because consent is given then morals be dammed

I often wonder if you consent to be murdered people who just say well they consented 🤷🏿‍♂️

There's a difference between condoning it and allowing people the freedom to make their own bad choices.

I don't want to live in a nanny state, frankly.

I agree OP.

@PurpleGreenandWhiteAreTheNewPrimaryColours
If you think the women selling themselves on the streets of Glasgow(add* another big inner city) or the trafficked women and girls have any choice in the matter ,you really are showing your privilege.

Haven't there been some very high profile cases where the man wasn't convicted of murder because it was "a consensual sex game (choking) gone wrong" ?

Agreed.

And there's a big difference between consenting to being murdered and consenting to sex.

I don't want my licence fee spent on teenage sex pictures by sleazy old men on huge BBC salaries.

More to the point, I think women are very (very) rarely the winners in prostitution, for the largest part it's entirely exploitative and usually dangerous as well. I don't for one second subscribe to the view that sex work is legitimate work. But I don't think that prostitutes should be criminalised - all criminal charges should fall on the men using them and the pimps exploiting them (male or female)

Me neither. But it wasn't. What in god's name are you on about!

Where do you think the money came from for this man's salary?

I see

And so you have the right to determine how all public servants spend their salaries. Your moral values override their legal choices!

No, but I will eat my hat if there is nothing in his contract about bringing the BBC into disrepute. Do you think he hasn't done that?

I agree OP

I don't know where the line is. On one hand I think people are entitled to do what they want in private as long as everyone consents enthusiastically.

On the other as soon as money is involved then its not really consent and shouldn't be condoned.

But then it gets onto a conversation about morals where really it should be about the grim, sexually entitled behaviour of men

Aha, so now we agree that this did not involve "licence-payers' money"!

You're trying a different line of argument. If he's breached his contract (and we don't know if he has) it's between him and his employer. None of this has any place in the glare of publicity when none of the parties involved have consented for it to be there. It's private.

On the other as soon as money is involved then its not really consent and shouldn't be condoned.

This. Free and enthusiastic consent is required. Money for drugs? Probably not free and enthusiastic consent.

If someone wouldn't do the sexual thing if you weren't paying them, you're a scumbag. Even if it's legal.

The BBC is our national public service broadcaster. We are entitled to hold them to the highest standards because they are publicly funded through the licence fee. It's not the same as if the presenter was with Sky or ITV or whoever. It's not just between him and his employer, it's between him, his employer and the public. Public services are publicly accountable. It's not private.

The BBC have had an unfortunate history of ignoring and condoning predatory male behaviour which has resulted in some horrendous scandals which I am sure you have heard about. They should be shit hot on this stuff by now and should have zero tolerance for sleazy predatory behaviour.

Like it or not, a lot of people are going to care about this kind of disreputable behaviour by a high profile BBC presenter - because he works for our national public service broadcaster and we all pay his huge salary.

If there is any truth to any of these allegations then he needs to resign or the BBC need to sack him. I have no interest in micromanaging how BBC employees spend their salary and as you correctly point out, none of us has that right. He should just no longer be given that salary, paid for by all of us. If there is any truth to any of these allegations then he needs to go.

My thoughts are with his wife and children.

The comments on MN tonight are unbelievable. I've had to stop looking at the threads. The minimising is off the scale. Assume these people would all be absolutely fine with their late teen/young adult child engaging in such things with a much older man in a hugely dominant position financially and professionally. Cos it's not illegal. 😒

Agreed

Me too. I feel like I've landed in some parallel universe....

I agree

I think part of the problem in this case OP is the fact that none of the people discussing the situation in these terms actually know the details of what happened, so everyone is merely speculating against the backdrop of a total void of actual facts.

People tend to think hypothetically in these scenarios when pondering questions such as "why might the young person have said it was fine?" and "why did the police conclude that nothing illegal occurred?", and so on, and I think some people who are saying this stuff don't actually think it would be fine, but are merely speculating to try to make sense of the scenario as they have been talking about it for the best part of a week and have now been told that no more actual details are going to be forthcoming any time soon. So people will fill that void with all sorts of crap as they need some kind of closure to reconcile this week of intense speculation with their need to let it go and move on with their lives.

Humans feel far more comfortable when things make sense to us, and I think that often comments like "perhaps they wanted to perform for money" is a way to make things make sense when we know we're not going to find out the truth.

Obviously I do find it surprising how many people condone prostitution generally and don't recognise its abusive nature and the imbalance of power, but I think that the people applying this reasoning here is merely a byproduct of that general view in society that everything is fine with consent.

I guess it might also stem from the cultural shift on emphasising consent in sexual situations, and everyone (including schoolchildren, etc) having been educated on what counts as consent and what doesn't. Obviously, it's great they're learning about consent, but condensing a complex topic into a brief infographic or video to explain to schoolchildren or the general public in two minutes isn't going to be able to cover complex topics like coerced consent and all the ways that might look. And they're not going to go teaching schoolchildren about prostitution to explain how it works (although who knows, nowadays).

So people who have been taught about consent only know the basics, but you have a bit of Dunning-Kruger going on. And so people create this false equivalence that if there is consent, then literally anything must be ok, because they've been taught that consent is the key, and their understanding of consent is still rudimentary.

What makes you the authority on defining consent? What if its YOU that doesn't understand it?
Sorry but you are coming across as really patronising suggesting that the only definition of consent is the one you're pushing.

I'll define consent according to my understanding of the word thank you. Just because money is involved doesn't always mean its not consent. If someone offered me a million pounds to sleep with someone I'd consider it. Does that mean , if I did it, I was doing it non consensually? I don't think so.

Feel free to flame 🔥

The BBC would find it extremely challenging (if not impossible) to rely on contractual breach in respect of reputational damage if it's true that they were put on notice of his behaviour several months ago but decided not to inform him or curtail his behaviour in May when they were first made aware of it.

The fact they allowed it to continue for months and only sought to make him aware when it became public knowledge indicates that they took a calculated and informed risk on their reputation back in May.

They should have taken steps to mitigate any reputational damage back in May if they wanted to rely on breach of contract in respect of his behaviour, as the BBC have been more aware than he was of the increasing likelihood of this getting out.

What makes you the authority on defining consent? What if its YOU that doesn't understand it?

It's a matter of opinion: I think it's one way and you think it's another - I don't think there are going to be any major consequences if we disagree and I somehow turn out to be "wrong" in the opinion I hold, are there?

What if I am the one who doesn't understand? Does it matter? Surely that would just make me another anonymous person talking crap on the internet?

Sorry but you are coming across as really patronising suggesting that the only definition of consent is the one you're pushing.

Who am I pushing it on? I was musing on the OP's question and wondering what the explanation for people having that view might be, in the context of someone who appears to have a similar opinion to myself on prostitution.

To be clear, I don't have any issue you believing whatever you want and I'm fine with you continuing to believe whatever you want. I'm not interested in pushing any agenda on you or anyone else.

I'll define consent according to my understanding of the word thank you.

That sounds like a good idea; I think you should.

So many of the conversations about prostitution and abuse of power focus very narrowly on the motives and intent of the individuals involved. And then it becomes more difficult as its impossible for posters on a forum like this to know the details about what happened in this specific circumstance.

If you widen your consideration to how a particular pattern of behaviour might affect society then the conversation becomes more useful in my opinion.

So someone offers to pay you a million pounds for sex and you accept. That transaction between the two of you is of little consequence to anyone.

Broaden it out:

1. Can consent truly be bought? What does it say about men that a significant proportion of them are fine with having sex with someone who ordinarily wouldn't go near them, for cash?
2. does this indicate that lots of men are happy to use money to get round the rules? In what other areas of life does they tend to bend/break the rules? Are there safeguarding implications for the less vulnerable?
3. if society tolerates this behaviour from rich men, and puts in place guidelines and laws to prevent it being reported on, does that make all men perceive these activities as less risky? What could be the consequences of that?
4. do we want to reduce levels of prostitution in society? How do we do that if we are protecting men from many of the powerful consequences of buying sex? (Losing their job, their relationship, public disapproval)

The Huw Edwards story illuminates some of those conversations regardless of the precise details of what happened. Similar questions could be asked about safeguarding young people in his case too.

My bf is a former prostitute. She regularly states how much she enjoyed her work and misses the money she made from it. She would be doing it now except her husband doesn't want her to. Not all women are exploited. All women should be free to choose sex work if they wish and visa versa of course.