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?

Well, you can start by not arresting women who work together. That's what the Nordic model is supposed to do but never does. In Ireland women still get arrested, the most high profile case was two Romanian women who were arrested then deported.

Before the Nordic model was adopted in Ireland the Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald was asked in parliament if women would still be arrested for working together. She said they would because they might only be pretending that they don't have a pimp.

Spending more money on rehab for addicts, counselling, retraining, housing. These are the practical things to do.

Ah, a good old fashioned attack on the source.

There were several other authors on that study besides Farley. Is he trying to say that anyone else who has ever been involved with her is also "discredited?"

Weitzer, who actually uses the term "radical feminism" scathingly in his own work, is known for his view that prostitution should be treated like any other transaction. Nope, no bias there at all. 🙄

But hey, I'll play along. More stuff for you to try to find an excuse to dismiss;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2615337/

https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-244X-6-24

"Here again are the results of the study done by Schröttle in 2004. At that time, the majority of women in prostitution were German (80%) (Schröttle & Müller, 2004, p. 651-652). By looking at these numbers, you cannot say that it’s a job like any other: 92% experienced sexual harassment, nearly 90% physical violence and mental violence and 59% sexual violence."

https://www.trauma-and-prostitution.eu/en/2016/11/05/trauma-as-the-pre-condition-and-consequence-of-prostitution/

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/97315

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299732.2018.1502713

https://journals.shareok.org/jofsw/article/view/52

I can keep on if you like. Happy reading!

they sound like good ideas. So your issue is more with the way the Nordic model has been implemented than the model itself?

I do believe that buying sex is fundamentally wrong, and is always exploitation. I don't think it is always rape, but it definitely is sometimes, and that's enough for me

I think the principle of the Nordic model that the buyers of sex should be heavily punished, while the sellers should be supported to stop seems like the most sensible and humane way to minimise a fundamentally harmful and morally wrong practice. I get that politicians can fuck up the implementation, but that doesn't mean the fundamental idea is wrong

I like Dervel's idea that people who are convicted of buying sex should be placed on the sex offenders register

IKR. I spit out my tea laughing when I saw the Wikipedia quotes.

I'm sure that we discussed, up thread, the idea that punters and pimps should be criminalised. The prostituted people should be offered real help to leave the situation. CPTSD is a known effect of being prostituted, I can't find the studies from the early 2000's, but there was quite a body of evidence.
I do find it rather telling that women, in this thread are not supporting the prostitution of women, but men are.

I can't see why anyone but a punter would be so desperate to justify it. Perhaps they are not punters, but punter sympathizers who defend male entitlement to sex, which is not much different from being a punter.
As contrast, I was for the legalization of marijuana for a long time before it was legalized. However, since I never used it myself, I didn't go on sites where people were predominantly against it to argue at length with those people. You need a personal stake to motivate you to behave that way.

@BernardBlacksMolluscs

So your issue is more with the way the Nordic model has been implemented than the model itself?

In politics what people say they will do and what they actually want to do are two different things. They never had any intention of decriminalizing women.

The last of these links is about women in Korea who are in shelters. So either they are drug addicts or they have escaped organized crime. How is this relevant to prostitutes in Britain? Most prostitutes in Britain are not drug addicts, not involved in organized crime and don't get PTSD. It is people like Dr Petra Boynton and Professor Belinda Brooks-Gordon who understand about the reality of prostitution in Britain.

Sources? And how did they reach those conclusions?

I find it telling too.

My belief is that it's all about justification. At some point they have used, or are using women. In order to deal with the cognitive dissonance of thinking about themselves as Nice Guys, they either have to make the women evil or the trade good. They tried for thousands of years to paint the women as evil (and still do pretend we're doing that). But it doesn't fly any more. So they have to paint the trade as good, or at least the least worst version of it. In order to do that they have to force other people to believe a number of clearly nonsensical things:

That women enjoy having multiple sexual partners a day (who they wouldn't shag except for the money) but at the same time that women are frigid and that's why men have to use sex workers.

That women are safer working together in smaller groups, self-managing but ignoring that when legalisation occurs, we end up with mega brothels run by men.

That sex work doesn't result in trauma but that the only way to prevent the non-existent trauma is decriminalisation.

That sex work involves the women actively choosing this work and that they aren't pimped and trafficked while simultaneously believing that the only want to prevent pimping and trafficking is women organising together in a decriminalisation scenario (see above re mega brothels).

It's work like any other job. Except no other job requires you to insert biohazard into your body, without effective PPE. In any Health and Safety work you learn to look at how to prevent harm. If a task is inherently dangerous, and this is, before you consider PPE or other protections, you first consider stopping the task altogether. Only essential tasks, that require the danger, move on to guards and PPE. There is no other non-essential job like this. And the only reason men want us to believe that it is because they believe sex with unwilling women is essential.

And my favourite, that drugs and sex being sold are analogous. Let's go down that road. Pimps and traffickers are dealers. That one is easy. Addicts are, now hold on, this one is interesting... Addicts are the users of the 'product', so punters. They are compelled by trauma and circumstances to use the product. Hmm, that sounds like the sex workers though. And what are the drugs? Vaginas, mouths and anuses? OK that can't be right. In this scenario you have to decriminalise the punters/addicts by making a clean, safe supply of vaginas/drugs available. That sounds really not OK since women are attached to the vaginas.

OK maybe the women are the addicts in this example. We want to decriminalise them while understanding that drugs (in this case the punters) are harmful and addictive. So we need to make the supply of punters safe and clean. OK but the punters are neither safe, nor are they clean. So that's impossible. I'm fully in favour of decriminalisation of drugs and have said so on here a few times. If I advance search the men on this thread, will I numerous threads about decriminalisation of drugs? Or is the analogy only so men can have sex with unwilling women?

and on this basis no radical policies should ever be tried under any circumstances?

or is it just the Nordic Model where this restriction applies?

one does wonder who 'they' are in this reply

if we're doing appeals to authority wasn't it Confucius who said 'truly a man who wants to stick his dick where it's not wanted will find a multitude of ways to justify it to himself'? or it might have been Dr Bessel van der Kolk

"It's not a question of defending punters. People who are against the war on drugs are not defending drug dealers. They know that the war against drugs harms addicts."

"If people stopped taking drugs then the problem will go away. If people stop drinking or gambling then those problems will go away. That's not going to happen though, so we have to make practical laws. There is no need for trauma, rape and death. Women will continue to die when every time they try to work together for safety they get arrested for brothel keeping"

What a pile of muddled thinking. Drugs and gambling are terrible things which people do to themselves.

You're right - there's no need for trauma, rape and death. Women aren't doing this to themselves - it's the punters whose right to stick their dicks where they're not really wanted who do that.

I was unaware you were speaking only of prostitution in the UK, but this includes research in the UK;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3508959/

Give the nitpicking a rest, dude.

Wonderful points.

You basically wrote off all the women as "not serious philosophers". Apart from the approved one who I've never heard of. I'm going to have a look, in the meantime I'll make a sportsman's bet with you that she's some kind of tradwife evopsych philosopher who thinks women love being objectified. Maybe something to do with Jordan Peterson. Back in a min.

Hmm. Well I can't make head nor tail of most of it but there was something about "positive objectification" that I imagine has gained popularity among the MRAs.
Very obscure. Weird.

To be fair to Jordan Peterson given he's vociferously anti-porn and in favour of men growing up and acting responsibly I can't imagine he'd be much support to the punters' lobbyists.

Ayn rand was a bit nuts. I'd imagine she would have something weird to say about prostitution. (are pimps captains of industry?) Maybe we should check her out?

There can be no moral or ethical justification for prostitution, which is just a way for men to use women. Victorians justified prostitution by saying it saved respectable women from being raped btw. I doubt that counts as much of an argument.
Selling the holes in ones body is not the same as selling kettles. A society that condones it is morally bankrupt.
I've read Kant. In some ways he has a point.

@Grammarnut If we wanted to wank on about philosophy, you could argue talking about prostitution was the fastest way to expose the flaws in utilitarianism. But winning imaginary philosophical debates on the internet doesn't mean anything anyway.

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand 2

Ayn Rand herself had this to say about promiscuity. Her followers seem to condense her views down to "prostitution is immoral but should not be illegal"

(I can't believe I've just spent a good 20 minutes trawling through this stuff)

Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important . . .

If people don’t be object to me widening the discussion. I believe this is important: Whilst our focus should be on those suffering whilst actively engaging in working as prostitutes. There is a wider issue of a spectrum of behaviours/attitudes towards women (of which prostitution is included) being viewed as objects and subject to violence that affects all women, and also gets in the way of men forming healthy relationships, which whilst significant isn’t the point of this discussion.

As long as women are viewed as objects, and subject to violence it practically limits the amount of freedom and liberty most women can experience in any public space. Irrespective of what legal equalities we have achieved, women still have to limit and be wise to when and where they engage in just simply living life. This is untenable, and whilst more and more women navigate this successfully and should be applauded, the fact remains they shouldn’t have to in the first place.

Things like prostitution being this inherently unsolvable problem is but one of many levers we use to keep women away from self actualised agency. Domestic violence and public harassment being other examples. When we argue in favour of things like men’s inherent right to buy sex on grounds of liberty, we are by definition accepting an intolerable infringement on women’s ability to simply exist in the world. This cannot be allowed to stand.

I reject being cast as some sort of male feminist hero simply for having some sort of basic desire to live collaboratively with one half of our species. I don’t particularly seek to identify as either feminist or even an ally. I am just a fellow traveller that would rather live in a healthier world. I don’t think at the end of the day my position is anything but a very basic, and incredibly low bar. It shouldn’t even be particularly noteworthy. I would personally prefer if it wasn’t.

Don't worry @Dervel we've not giving you medals but we don't think you're a dick. There's a good argument for saying that you can tell the value of a person not only by their friends but in this case, by whose nose you're getting up. You get up the right noses.

And hating women is bad for everyone. You're right about that.

This! Couldn't agree more.

The passive aggressive "male feminist hero" swipe at you was about envy because you are thoughtful, intelligent, mature and as a result people actually like you. It's just a substitute for calling you a cuck or a simp, which the poster knows would get his post deleted. Don't sweat it.

I wasn't intending to win philosphical arguments. But the existence of prostitution is an evil which impinges on all women. It assumes that 'woman' is a sellable comodity, rather than a person, and that women are 'things'. Once you see that porn, prostitution in its various manifestations is a way of keeping women coralled out of the mainstream world, it shows that a utilitarian way of viewing prostitution is another way of objectifying women.