To those who consider prostitution rape...

[Ahsoka2001]

I recently found some old MN threads where posters debated whether a man who has sex with a prostitute commits rape. Those in favour argued that the woman's consent is not freely given - it is conditional on the basis money is exchanged and consent cannot be bought -

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3012135-Is-prostitution-rape

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/2791778-does-having-sex-with-a-prostitute-constitute-rape

To those who agree with this position, I'm wondering where exactly do we draw the line? If all prostitution is rape, then -

a) What about female pornstars? They only have sex on camera on the condition that they are paid for the shoot. Does this mean every male pornstar in history is a rapist because the woman's consent was bought and not freely given?

b) What about mainstream/narrative cinema actresses? If a female Hollywood star only consents to a sex scene on the condition of receiving a paycheck for the role, does that mean they're being sexually assaulted when they perform a scene in which they're kissed/touched sexually? Does this mean male Hollywood actors who partake in these scenes are sexual assaulters?

...Surely not! But again, if all prostitution automatically equals rape, then how and where do we draw the line?

If we were to criminalise the men who use prostituted women and those who supply prostituted women to those men, then we would begin to address the issue imo. Currently the "ownership" of female sexuality belongs to men, this is what needs to change imo.

cor, some men feel really strongly that men should have a right to buy sex don't they? and get a bit salty when their views are questioned.

the men who turn up to explain why buying sex is actually OK are always quite interesting in my experience, as are the mental gymnastics they go through to explain why it's OK for human bodies to be bought and sold as commodities.

I don't think what happened historically when all sex came with a risk of pregnancy, and where women and children were all "chattels" (I.e. property) of a man (either their husband or father) can be used to say anything about the nature of relationships today.

Most relationships aren't "transactional". Most people would consider their partner using sex workers to be a major betrayal. I'm sad for you that you think relationships are transactional, and also pretty sad for your wife as I bet she doesn't know this side of her husband.

But weirdly dont want body parts like kidneys to be up for sale.

Buying sex is like no other purchase, anywhere, ever.
If this was run past the health and safety executive, it would be banned. Because swapping bodily fluids is all kinds of wrong.

@CassieMaddox ,

‘I don't think what happened historically when all sex came with a risk of pregnancy, and where women and children were all "chattels" (I.e. property) of a man (either their husband or father) can be used to say anything about the nature of relationships today.’

That is pretty simplistic and reductive. Let’s only look at the last 50 years, and only at the Western World.

‘Most relationships aren't "transactional". Most people would consider their partner using sex workers to be a major betrayal. I'm sad for you that you think relationships are transactional, and also pretty sad for your wife as I bet she doesn't know this side of her husband.’

See my longer post about defining terms etc and look at the Relationships board. How many posts are there about people wanting to leave marriages because their ‘need’ aren’t being met (including regular sex)? Isn’t that the definition of transactional?

And the last part is a pretty sad passive aggressive personal attack. Why do you need to go there and why would you feel that I care about your views on me as a person?

@Bodeganights ,

‘But weirdly dont want body parts like kidneys to be up for sale.’

I am not sure I would actually have a problem with a market for kidneys, as long as it was very highly regulated. There are people who die waiting for a kidney, and people for whom a decent sum of money would be life changing.

In a theoretical sense, I would definitely sell a kidney to fund something important for me or my family, but I am not in the position of needing to, so I can’t guarantee what I would actually do (am already on organ donor list).

I know you're enjoying all this lovely chin stroking and getting lots of attention @Newbutoldfather but let's try to understand what you actually believe

I start from the position that there is no inherent need for humans to be able to buy sex with other humans. Further, I believe that the outcomes for humans from whom sex is purchased are so detrimental that it is a public good to take active steps to discourage or stamp out altogether the practice of buying sex.

What's your view?

@BernardBlacksMolluscs ,

You don’t have to reply to my posts, you can ignore me entirely.

‘I start from the position that there is no inherent need for humans to be able to buy sex with other humans. Further, I believe that the outcomes for humans from whom sex is purchased are so detrimental that it is a public good to take active steps to discourage or stamp out altogether the practice of buying sex.’

Well money is a need and, arguably, sex is, so it is not unlikely that they will be exchanged. And they always have been, even in societies with very strict penalties. But I do accept that the business damaged a lot of women, although not all. Personally I would like to see strong regulation and those who run it very severely sanctioned.

It’s really interesting seeing the passion but fuzziness with which some people argue. The actual subject is interesting: can you consent to paid sex. I think yes you can

FFS the arrogance. Our thinking is not fuzzy deletes personal attack on intelligence.

The actual subject is this; if sex workers are often addicted, trafficked, coerced, abused and otherwise unable to fully and freely consent; and there is no meaningful way to ascertain which of them are; and studies show men don't even ask; and when you look at punter sites they laugh together about pimps and addictions; are the punters even slightly concerned about consent? And if the punters know it's fairly likely consent isn't free, even in the very best scenarios, does that mean they are rapists? Sex without consent is rape. So yes. At the very very least, the most generous to them, they don't care if it's rape or not. Which makes them rapists to me.

Apologists always like to flip it to 'can women consent to sex for money?' because that question suits their script; that feminists hate and ignore sex workers and men are just the innocent customers just like any other service-for-hire. Even if some women 'consent' (and I'd argue it is a small proportion), men don't care either way.

And BTW this goes double in other countries. Thailand, you are 100%, no shadow of a doubt, a rapist.

It's not a passive aggressive attack. Seeing sex as "transactional" and a need to be met is a very sad reflection of your mindset and what your sex life must be like. Can't be that great for your wife either.

Well money is a need

well yes. But exchanging sex for money is not the only way of satisfying people's need for money, yes?

arguably, sex is [a need]

I think we may be at the crux of things here. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but this reads to me as if your view is that men's need for sex is such that it is essential that they are able to buy sex, regardless of the harm caused to the people they are buying sex from. Is that broadly in line with your views?

I do accept that the business damaged a lot of women, although not all

again, your view appears to be that some people (generally women and children) are damaged by being prostituted, but this is an acceptable harm balanced against the need some humans have to buy sex - is this right?

Personally I would like to see strong regulation and those who run it very severely sanctioned

so the benefits of being able to buy sex outweigh the harms, and society should therefore allow it to continue but regulate it?

it's the bloody Fawcett Society I know, but a little light googling turned up this

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/105942/html/#:~:text=Women%20in%20prostitution%20also%20suffer,in%20those%20working%20in%20prostitution.

quote: Women in prostitution also suffer from a range of physical and mental health issues as a result of their trade. A multitude of studies have found high rates of depression, anxiety, stress and post-traumatic stress disorder in those working in prostitution. Similarly, due to the nature of the work and levels of violence experienced, the harm done to the physical health of women in prostitution is severe.

I would contend that we should only sanction people earning a living in a way that causes them such serious harm if what they are doing is absolutely essential for us as a society.

We don't allow EDF to employ people to keep the interior of the reactors at Hinkley point clean for example, we require them to do it another way, because of the harm such work would cause to people

Arranged marriages were sex by consent. The parties had publicly to consent. But you are talking of societies where the idea that you married for love, rather than family or personal advancement, a home, political advantage etc. did not exist. A great magnate marrying another great magnate's daughter was making a political arrangement. The children of the marriage were a statement of the continued alliance between father- and son-in-law and their families.

Later, women needed to marry, esp after the dissolution of the monasteries in northern Europe, where the escape route of a convent was gone. Being an unmarried daughter at home was to be something of a drudge after the chance of marriage had gone - esp in middle-class families (less so among the upper classes and the working classes, however). Again, the idea of marriage for love did not exist except in romantic comedies.

Arranged marriages, marrying up etc were common to all strata of society, as they still are in e.g. India today. Peasants and bakers married for family advancement as much as did barons and princes.
I think you are a bit late in thinking 50s to 70s were days of making a good match - outside a very narrow circle this is not so. Marriages of affection had been the norm in the UK since the late eighteenth century (this is the companionate marriage, which we now mostly conform to). Young women wanting to marry a rich banker is nothing new, of course, but is rare outside romantic novels.

we clearly have different opinions/ experiences.

It doesn’t sit very well with sone people but sone women would rather get paid £200/hr as a sex worker than £11/hr to work in a cafe.

Some are corrected, some have substance issues but lots just do it for the very good money.

To suggest that a woman who chooses to be a sex worker is a victim or rape is just another example of some women’s rather tenuous relationship with personal responsibility.

Do the vast majority of prostitutes earn £200 an hour?

I would contend that we should only sanction people earning a living in a way that causes them such serious harm if what they are doing is absolutely essential for us as a society.

You also need to add in and that such jobs are risk assessed with safeguards and systems put in place so that what such persons face is the risk of harm not the certainty of harm. Plus if harm happens there will be a support network in place.

here we go again

'some women do OK from prostitution, therefore all buying and selling of sex is fine'

shall we remind ourselves of the facts for a moment?

https://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/Confronting_the_Harm_Briefing.pdf

More than one fifth (21%) of the sample who attended WHS more than once disclosed experiencing incidents of criminality, threats of harm or violence and actual violence, all of which occurred in the context of prostitution, and the vast majority of which were severe

Violence and the threats of violence are used by criminals, pimps, traffickers and buyers alike as a means to control women or ensure that they bend to their will – the evidence demonstrates that violence is endemic to the trade, and this was the case across all years of data collection

The most prevalent harms to the sexual health of women in prostitution result from the frequency with which multiple, different, often previously unknown buyers have sexual access to their bodies, demanding sex acts that are unwanted, undesired and violating

Women do not emerge from prostitution in better economic circumstances than when they first started – in fact quite the reverse – they were poor when they entered prostitution and, while they may have managed to support themselves and their families along the way, they are still poor if and when they leave.

sounds totally fine, doesn't it?

The example men use is always the Belle de Jour example. I've known so many sex workers and the worst 'per hour' was a woman who accepted snack food and a drink for a sex act. When she ate the food and drank the drink and then refused to do the act, he attacked her.

The economics of the sex trade are interesting. There was a time, a brief time, when mass addiction wasn't a thing, mass trafficking of foreign women wasn't as prevalent, and shame meant women to fuel the trade were few and far between, when sex work was better paid. Illicit drugs mean that the price of paid sex has fallen in most places. The industry has also ramped up with girls (not women) in places like Thailand wholesale bought and addicted so that they can be pimped easily. It's become cheaper to buy. Even in the magical utopia of Germany  you can get a BJ for 20 euros or less. Trafficking means you can always find a desperate woman, who doesn't have the language to seek help, to exploit.

And even if we are very generous, very very generous. Let's ignore the trauma-impacted, sexual abuse survivors and women who are acting out their abused lives. Let's ignore all of them. Let's ignore those with 'boyfriends' who pressure them. Let's focus on the percentage who are trafficked and/or addicted and desperate and unwilling but they have to.

@Laidbackguy what risk of you raping someone is acceptable? 10% of the women? 50% of the women? I'd argue that the only acceptable risk of raping someone is 0%. I assume you can admit that there is a significant risk, when using women in this way, that you are raping one. You wouldn't know if she has her passport, or if she's free to leave. You are therefore choosing to rape at least a proportion of them. Personal responsibility, right?

81.6% of nurses have experienced work place violence or threats of violence.

https://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/nnu-report-shows-increased-rates-of-workplace-violence-experienced-by-nurses#:~:text=NNU's%20major%20findings%20on%20workplace,violence%20within%20the%20past%20year.

How many guys working on building sites do you think have had someone punch them in their career.

Sex trafficking is wrong, but to conflate that with the growing number of women who profit from sex work is also wrong.

There are plenty of women paying their way through university with sugar daddies or only fans etc. no ones making them do it.

Again @Laidbackguy what proportion of women do you think is acceptable to rape?

How do you know anyone is not a victim of modern slavery? Or being forced to work against their will? Do you check the guys who come to cut down trees of build your extension to
make sure they have their passports?

And BTW the Invisible Men Project collated punter's words about sex workers. I suggest no one reads it if you are likely to be traumatised. Some of them are literally describing rapes. prostitutionresearch.com/the-invisible-men-project/

This sanitised, fictional account of sex work as perfectly safe and happy is nonsense.

Do you check the guys who come to cut down trees of build your extension to* make sure they have their passports?*

I'm not raping them. Again, what proportion of rapes are OK?

Their website literally says abolish prostitution in massive letters across the top, it’s not exactly going to be a balanced and representative view of the situation is it?