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?

@Dervel,

Re your widening of the discussion:

‘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.’

Objectification is complex. It is an easy ‘gotcha’, but the problem is that all sex is, at least in part, based on objectification, and this applies both ways. People don’t hook up with other people they aren’t attracted to, and there are many threads on here of women who are struggling to have sex with husbands who have put on weight. It is basic biology. So the issue isn’t objectification per se, but whether objectification is fine to relieve a sexual itch but not fine in exchange for money. As to the violence bit, you will never ever eliminate violence in humans, and that includes sexual violence. Men are more often victims (in total, not sexual violence) but, yes, it is perpetrated by men. But that is because men are, on average, bigger and they have testosterone, which they kind of need. It is actually declining significantly in western populations, personally I don’t think that is a good thing, but you may disagree.

‘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.’

This will resonate on this board, but I doubt that the majority would agree if you posted it as a proposition in AIBU or did a poll amongst the general populace. It certainly doesn’t resonate with me. The women I know no more circumscribe their lives than I do. People don’t need applause for just living normally!

oh mate

where to even start

your post says that you see the decline of male violence in western populations as a bad thing. That's erm....an interesting take.

and you have no fucking clue what the women in your life do to keep themselves safe from men. you have demonstrated yourself to be insensitive, tone deaf and not particularly smart. they're not going to tell you and you're never going to work it out for yourself.

@BernardBlacksMolluscs

‘and you have no fucking clue what the women in your life do to keep themselves safe from men. you have demonstrated yourself to be insensitive, tone deaf and not particularly smart. they're not going to tell you and you're never going to work it out for yourself.’

And you have, in your own delightful words, what the men in your life do to keep themselves safe, so you have no comparator!

‘your post says that you see the decline of male violence in western populations as a bad thing. That's erm....an interesting take. ‘

Nope, I said testosterone. Yes, makes less violence, but also less sex drive and, indirectly, a lower birth rate. Pluses and minuses…

awww, was I inadequately fawning? diddums. you see, we're not in the same room so you can't use your greater size and strength to intimidate me. sad times (for you)

This may come as news to you, but we're talking about women here. There are doubtless things that men do to keep themselves safe from other men. I advise my sons to take such measures.

but we were talking about the things women do to keep themselves safe from men. you see (you may wish to sit down at this point) not everything is about men

if you meant testosterone declining and not male violence you may wish to consider being a little less ham fisted in your phrasing and then people would have a clearer view of what you're going on about

@BernardBlacksMolluscs ,

‘awww, was I inadequately fawning? diddums. you see, we're not in the same room so you can't use your greater size and strength to intimidate me. sad times (for you)’

Do you really look at someone’s size and strength before making an argument? I have no desire to intimidate anyone. Why would I? I just disagree with you, I know a hard concept for people who like echo chambers.

‘if you meant testosterone declining and not male violence you may wish to consider being a little less ham fisted in your phrasing and then people would have a clearer view of what you're going on about’

My phrasing was 100% clear to anyone reading objectively. It refers to the subject of the previous sentence, it is how grammar works 99% of the time. But, of course, you weren’t reading objectively….

You do not understand the cultural sea you swim in, you have demonstrated that on this thread. You take things that seem true for you and assume they are true for everyone else, without considering the differences between you and those people.

there are women (and a man) on this thread who have attempted to explain to you why your experiences don’t extend to every other human in the world but you seem to be unable to take on this information

when dealing in person with someone who had demonstrated the level of empathy you have would I do a risk assessment based on his size and mood? You bet I would

Nope, I said testosterone. Yes, makes less violence, but also less sex drive and, indirectly, a lower birth rate

The declining birth rate is due to economic and social factors - not lower testosterone.

‘The declining birth rate is due to economic and social factors - not lower testosterone.’

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is-causing-a-male-fertility-crisis

Lower testosterone is probably a factor.

The level of "adjustments" made by women and girls is largely invisible, often to themselves, certainly to men. Very few lone women will walk through a known "red light" district, at any time of day, for fear of being propositioned and no not being taken for an answer. Women cover their drinks in pubs and clubs (I'm certainly not aware of straight men having to do that). The constant awareness of risk is there, and it's assessment is second nature. The reclaim the night marches in the 80's had this at their heart. Women were being informally curfewed, and they still are!

What you said was lower testosterone was resulting in less sex. You have no evidence whatsoever that people are having less sex than in past years. (Unless of course you mean husbands can no longer legally rape their wives)

In any case "Low testosterone levels can decrease sperm count and quality, which can lead to infertility. Low testosterone can also affect other aspects of fertility, such as sex drive and erectile dysfunction. However, the testes produce much higher levels of testosterone than the blood, so even men with low testosterone levels may still have enough for sperm production"

https://lomalindafertility.com/infertility/men/low-testosterone/#:~:text=Low%20testosterone's%20effect%20on%20male,in%20decreased%20production%20of%20sperm.

It's also a good thing, on a dying planet. We certainly don't need millions more carbon consumers to accelerate the death.

Interesting position. You suggest that declining violence in Western men is a bad thing. You may be right if you are thinking of the sort of violence we use to protect our societies from others who might destroy it. I see in a foggy way what you are getting at. Non-Western societies are not less violent and are often much more violent towards women (though we are not supposed to notice this as all cultures are equally worthy). If the ability of Western men to project violence or aggression towards those who attack their values diminishes then Western values (which support women better than non-Western values) will be destroyed. So, yes, the decrease in violence exemplified by outward aggression against encroaching cultures/ideas that undermine Western philosophy, enlightenment, and reason is a loss. What we do about it whilst preventing as much as we can violence against women and girls is a difficult circle to square. However, a visit to Durham cathedral and a careful look at the Norman pillars will show you exactly how you square a circle - in other words, it can be done. We can protect Western values (which are by and large supportive of ordinary men and women and their ability to live their lives with freedom and also accomplishment) whilst lowering aggression in Western societies towards women. We know that rape, prostitution, pornography and violence towards women are not civilized and that it is Western civilization that has made these things clear and (sometimes) attempted to eradicate them, so we need to support our civilization - aggressively if necessary. A bit less de-colonization, and a bit more realisation that not every culture on the planet is worthy of continuance and that Western values are not the pits.

@XChrome

Give the nitpicking a rest, dude.

Is it nitpicking to say that paying for sex is already illegal in Korea? How do you think that the Nordic model is going to help there? It sounds as if criminalizing clients is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Even if in Korea it was legal to pay for sex then they had the Nordic model, we know that the Nordic model doesn't work. We know that in surveys more women in Sweden today say that they have been paid for sex than before the Nordic model - 1.5% compared to 0.3%. We know that in Northern Ireland the amount of prostitution has increased.

I read the article that you linked to and it is Melissa Farley again. Melissa Farley is very biased and her methods are flawed.

Ah, a good old fashioned attack on the source.

Most of the academics who are against the Nordic model and pro decriminalization are women. Professor Belinda Brooks-Gordon, Dr Petra Boynton, Professor Teela Sanders, Emily Kenway, Professor Amia Srinivasan, Juno Mac and Molly Smith.

Belinda Brooks-Gordon said "Lots of people mistakenly think that drug addicts form the majority of people in the sex industry. They do not. They are only a tiny proportion. And on-street prostitution only accounts for about 10 to 15 per cent of all prostitution. Decriminalisation makes it safer for people. It could be made no different to any other forms of business - with age guidelines, health and safety rules and zoning areas."

I don't know how she came to her conclusions. This will be the best estimate according to the information at the time. As for the PTSD, I have seen no evidence that it is common except with drug addicts.

@MrsTerryPratchett

"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."

We have got to the stage in the thread where I am going to have to repeat myself. According to people who know like Dr Petra Boynton quoted below nearly all paid-for sex involves condoms. Sex workers in the UK don't get many STDs.

"The recent increase in sexually transmitted infections in the general population in the United Kingdom contrasts with a reduced prevalence in female sex workers. And the prevalence of HIV infection in sex workers, mainly associated with injecting drug use, remains low— between 0% and 3.5%. Sex workers have a responsible approach to managing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, with a high prevalence of condom use for commercial vaginal sex (98%). The Home Office strategy shows inadequate understanding of risk, and the proposed changes could increase negative health outcomes, while limiting patients' access."

Decriminalisation makes it safer for people. It could be made no different to any other forms of business - with age guidelines, health and safety rules and zoning areas."

I think health and safety has already done addressed.

If you want to make mumsnet a philosophy free zone that's fine by me. But don't start talking about morals/ethics because you can't get anywhere sensible without involving philosophy.

The evidence for CPTSD is not looked for, sadly. Very little good quality research has been done. Within mainstream psychiatry/psychology, the question is rarely asked and the women are unlikely to volunteer the information, given the stigma of prostitution and the erroneous belief that it is usually a choice. For any other research funds are needed and the people who are most likely to use prostituted women, tend to be those who ultimately control the funding.
Anecdotally, which I am aware some people feel is unworthy of repeating, the experiences of prostituted women do lead to CPTSD, the behaviours of the punters and pimps being such that it becomes almost inevitable.

Women are not a sellable commodity. A woman can provide a service such as massage, and that can become sexual. She's not selling herself, she's selling a service.

You talk about 'objectifying women' but you don't want to understand what the main authorities on this subject have to say about it. You think that you know what it means but you don't. Martha Nussbaum is a recognized authority on the subject of objectification.

MacKinnon and Dworkin on the other hand wouldn't call themselves philosophers.

Who decided that only people who call themselves, or others call them, philosophers are in a positron to determine what the objectification of women is?

Punters who engage in sexual acts, while calling the woman they are engaging in those acts with, "dirty whore" while telling them that they are "just a hole" " I'm doing what daddy did" etc etc are certainly objectifying that woman.

I am aware of what objectification means, and prostitution and pornography both objectify women. What Nussbaum has to say on the matter is irrelevant here. Dworkin and McKinnon are not philosophers - more social researchers, pehaps - but they hit the nail on the head with objectification - it is treating a person as a thing. Slavery involves objectification in that slaves are 'living tools'. From the pov of prostitution and pornography women are 'living tools' for masturbation by men (who are the only unobjectified people).

I see Dr Bessel van der Kolk's no 1 fan boy is back

to address a few of your points in no particular order (which is probably somewhat like the inside of your head)

Is it nitpicking to say that paying for sex is already illegal in Korea?
yes. also irrelevant

How do you think that the Nordic model is going to help there?
in the way it is intended to help. by providing judgement free ways to help women escape from prostitution. have you been paying attention?

I read the article that you linked to and it is Melissa Farley again. Melissa Farley is very biased and her methods are flawed.

oh well if you say so then it must be true. oh, actually it doesn't work like that. got anything that isn't wikipedia to back that up?

<load of post modernist waffle about how exploiting people for sex is fiiiiine and anyway look over there>

I don't know how she came to her conclusions.

well maybe find out before you rely on them hmm?

Sex workers in the UK don't get many STDs.

oh well, in that case exploiting people for sex anywhere in the world is dandy

I am not sure you are making the iron clad case you think you are. Dr Bessel van der Kolk would be very disappointed in you

@IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle ,

‘What you said was lower testosterone was resulting in less sex. You have no evidence whatsoever that people are having less sex than in past years. (Unless of course you mean husbands can no longer legally rape their wives) ‘

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48184848#:~:text=British%20people%20are%20having%20less,the%20data%20from%2034%2C000%20people.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/02/less-sex-please-were-millennials-study

Now I have evidenced less testosterone and less sex but, clearly, the link is complex.

But testosterone is related to sex drive (I don’t think that can be disputed), so we have a correlation and we have a plausible mechanism linking them.

Of course pornography, busy lives, internet and smart phones are in the mix too. But testosterone is declining and sex (consensual sex!) is declining.