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?

Ah, come on now, I bloody love a bit of Tolkien, and I’m certainly not an incel!
But then neither am I arguing that because modern slavery exists it should be ok to buy a woman for sex.
#notallTolkienfans

I mean I knew it was Tolkien for a reason @risefromyourgrave

Hot nerds are my kryptonite. Pun intended.

This discussion is flying well above your head. It's not about the women who sell their bodies. It's about the men who consume them. Since they do not know if the woman is/has been trafficked or not, that makes them very close cousins to rapists. If they aren't raping somebody, it's simply a matter of the luck of the draw. What is your response to that?

That was unworthy even of your clearly low standards for argumentation.
If you are a consumer in an industry rife with slavery then of course you don't know. What industries would those be? Please list them. Arborists and builders, according to your example? 😄

What % of us are defending slavery?

Frothing at the mouth with desperation.

Definition of a strawman fallacy: A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction

Laidback's quotes:
"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."
“Well money is a need and, arguably, sex is”
How do you know anyone is not a victim of modern slavery?

Its not a strawman if it’s an almost word for word outline of your actual argument silly. Unless you are a strawjohn all along.

Men don't need to buy sex. They could just masturbate. They pay women because they want the use of the woman's body.
There are no clever arguments that can make it a moral act.

Exactly. Even if we accept that ejaculation is a "need" it does not follow that it needs to be into or onto a woman's body.
I don't accept it as a need anyway. Food, water, shelter, nuturance and safety are needs. Notice that prostituted women's need for safety is considered a lower priority than men's desire to use them to ejaculate by the the defenders of the sex trade.
Their sense of privilege and entitlement is insane.

personal responsibility.

personal responsibility eh? There's a thought - what about taking "personal responsibility" for where you (general you) stick your dick and stick it where it's actually welcome.

How about taking "personal responsibility" and take a long, hard look at yourself. Setting all other objections to prostitution aside do you really want to be the sad sack that can only get laid if you pay for it?

Even if you don't care about the inherent immorality of prostitution, even if you believe there are women making a genuine choice, even if you don't think that "choice" causes societal damage, don't you (general you) have any self respect?

I'm still trying to reconcile the idea that women have to take ppersonal responsibility, while the men wii pay for sex, presumably, don't.
Another issue, which rarely gets spoken of, is the treatment of prostituted women, by punters. Not the physical violence, but the belief that it is the punters right to speak to/ at the women, in any way they choose. The degradation and deliberate humiliation stayes with those women and girls for years, it colours their entire lives and the punters do it partly as they blame the women for the punters having to pay for sex.

@Dumbo12 ,

‘I'm still trying to reconcile the idea that women have to take ppersonal responsibility, while the men wii pay for sex, presumably, don't.’

It is about taking personal responsibility for making a choice as an adult human being. You may not like the choice that they make to prostitute themselves, but is it right to ban the choice?

You keep going on about how the ‘Belle du jour’ type is vanishingly rare. Honestly, I have no idea of the truth or how many of them there are; I suspect, however, nor do you. What you are saying is that choice should be made illegal (I know you want to criminalise the man, not the woman, but the idea behind it is to ban it altogether).

I do think that, if you truly believe in equality, that provided the woman has made a free choice, criminalising one half of the transaction is quite infantilising to the woman.

I do get that there are some things that we don’t allow for the good of society, such as paid surrogacy or organ sales. And you could claim prostitution is on the same spectrum. But, again, most wouldn’t make the claim that sleeping with someone for money was akin to selling an organ. But I do see this argument.

And then, how far do you go? Would you make penetration illegal or all sexual acts, and would that only include face-to-face or virtual too. Should Only Fans be made illegal?

But, even I did buy the above, you then have the practical argument. You can’t ban prostitution. Even in countries where the penalty is death, it still happens. And the evidence of the famed Nordic model is that it causes more harm, and again penalises the women more than the men.

I have engaged properly on this thread and steered clear of trite or ad hominem attacks. This is a discussion board and people are entitled to dissenting views, I don’t get upset or shamed by 3 (or even 7) word trivial meaningless slogans, so you will be wasting your time replying in that vane (unless trying to impress other fellow travellers).

“I do think that, if you truly believe in equality, that provided the woman has made a free choice, criminalising one half of the transaction is quite infantilising to the woman.”

But again, that’s a huge assumption which ignores the majority of women.

How does a punter know the age of the woman (if they are legally a woman*) what MH issues they face, what addictions etc.

*legal as in over 18 ie not legally a child.

@ApocalipstickNow ,

I think that is where we have a good definition of rape in law already where the man has to reasonably believe that the woman consented.

To me, it is his responsibility to ask for proof of age where there is any doubt. And, obviously, if she proves to be underage and he hasn’t checked, he should be jailed.

Issues other than age should be his responsibility too (as in if she is being coerced). There is no reason that this couldn’t be tested in court under current laws. But the money itself isn’t coercion.

I don’t think things like addictions, MH etc should be his responsibility to any greater extent than any unpaid hook up. If you meet someone in a bar, online etc and then have sex, there are exactly the same issues.

That isn’t being unsympathetic, but we have existing laws, support etc for all those things. Unfortunately, all of our support services are at breaking point and I know people are slipping through the net all the time. I do make regular charitable contributions to support those in desperate need (mainly my local soup kitchen).

Under the Nordic model the woman's choice is not illegal. It is the man who would be committing a crime. As the spectre of committing the crime of rape doesn't deter them, maybe this will.

@CassieMaddox ,

You need to read the link above about how it actually has the reverse effect.

No one gives evidence against the men, so it is impossible to convict. And the women are frequently illegal immigrants, addicts etc, and it brings the police into their lives so they frequently do end up arrested or deported.

Someone above linked to several proper pieces of research on this, They are worth a read.

As I said, it is also infantilising if the women are adults and making a free choice. Whichever way you look at it, an adult inciting a criminal act is a criminal (unless you believe that they aren’t really adults with agency).

And the women are frequently illegal immigrants, addicts etc, and it brings the police into their lives so they frequently do end up arrested or deported.

Oh, so not belle-du-jour types then?

But I guess immigrants/addicts being raped doesn't matter

@CassieMaddox ,

‘But I guess immigrants/addicts being raped doesn't matter ‘

Not relevant to anything I wrote and just sloganeering- can’t you reduce the word count, though to make it a bit more impactful?!

😂

Nah. I can't really be bothered to spend a lot of time writing a long post to someone who's so wedded to their idea they don't even notice the glaring contradictions in their own posts!

I'm not going to reply to the bad faith argument by the apparent resident punter. No one has used slogans towards him and the harms to women and girls have not been acknowledged by him.
I have worked with prostituted women and they are infantilised by the pimps and the punters, not by people offering them help to leave.
To watch a man try and justify using prostituted women, by suggesting that it's an issue of personal choice for the women, choice which those who are concerned about those women would remove, is most unpleasant. We used to allow people to work in any number of dangerous and horrible places/ jobs, the risks were deemed to be too great and so many more protections were brought in. Think mining, munitions, textiles, foundries etc.

@Dumbo12 ,

‘I'm not going to reply to the bad faith argument by the apparent resident punter.’

Wrong on two counts: you have replied and I have never paid for sex.

‘We used to allow people to work in any number of dangerous and horrible places/ jobs, the risks were deemed to be too great and so many more protections were brought in. Think mining, munitions, textiles, foundries etc.’

We still do, none more dangerous than the army. And you will notice the solution wasn’t criminalising them but bringing in strong regulations (which often led to us just exporting the issue to poorer countries, but better than nothing).

We criminalised some aspects of dangerous working practices. Guards were mandated for dangerous machinery, we no longer allowed people to crawl under looms to clean, while the looms were running we made it illegal to require someone to do that. etc etc etc,

May I point out that adding to the thread is not replying to one particular poster. Women are allowed to speak to each other without centering men.

We still do, none more dangerous than the army.

oh for heaven's sake

Do I agree that being able to defend ourselves as a nation is essential? Yes

Do I agree that men being able to pay to stick their dicks into women is essential? hmm, that's quite the chin scratcher.

For those who defend buying sex it really boils down to

1. they don't believe it causes harm to the people being used for paid for sex, or to wider society

2. they do understand that it causes harm, but they believe the benefits of people being able to buy sex outweigh the harms

3. they do not care about the harms being caused to those used for paid for sex or to society as a whole

I think we have established that both the posters on this thread who are enthusiastically pro exploitation of women and children for paid for sex accept that in at least some cases the practice is incredibly harmful to those from whom sex is being purchased. Therefore they are not in camp one.

They are of course both in camp 3 in my view, although they will be unable to admit it, due to being 'nice guys' who 'love women'.

Yes the army is a dangerous job, however unlike prostitution people aren't trafficked into it and having mental health conditions or drug addictions would mean someone wouldn't be eligible for entry. Added to that there is support for vetrans with conditions such as ptsd and physical disabilities which have occurred due to the nature of the work, although there are charities that support women leaving prostitution they aren't so well know, people are less likely to give to such charities and you don't generally see them campaigning on the highstreet or outside supermarkets.