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?

You've linked two pretty much puff pieces. What relevance they have to prostitution isn't clear.

Why are you so determined to promote punters' rights?

I find it fascinating that women, in this thread, who I presume have experienced sexual activity as women, have such a different view of prostitution from the men, who have not experienced sexual activity as women. One group are pretty sure that it is indeed harmful, the other, largely, can't see how it could be harmful, as it's a matter of choice and a "service" much like cleaning a toilet.
As an aside I would hope that anyone cleaning lavatories would wear rubber gloves and use cloths, rather than licking the bowl clean!

But testosterone is related to sex drive

for men

I mean I know it's easy (for you) to overlook 51% of the population but do try to remember we exist

@BernardBlacksMolluscs ,

‘But testosterone is related to sex drive

for men

I mean I know it's easy (for you) to overlook 51% of the population but do try to remember we exist’

Umm, you are increasingly hilarious. This whole thread concern’s heterosexual sex. Without men, that is pretty tricky.

'hilarious'

I forgot about women - again!

chortle, snort, etc

and this whole thread does not concern heterosexual sex

fuck me, that's a mistake that says a lot about you

this thread concerns the exploitation of some humans for the sexual gratification of other humans

Are you hard of reading? I can't be bothered to repeat myself. Read it again.

Also, some of us studied philosophy. We're very used to PoMo men using it to justify their wank fantasies. I lived with several of them for a couple of years. The tiresome arguments to justify their shit were boring then. It's like toddlers tantrumming:

Intimidate
Shame
Use religion or some other spurious shit
Argue
Appeal to authority
Move goalposts
Scream and scream until they're sick.

At the end of the day, if you want to stick your cock into a human who is only doing it because they need the money, and you know they aren't really willing, you're a rapist.

Selling holes in your body to someone for masturbatory functions cannot - and should not - be normalised like any other business. No other job asks people to do this.
NB I also think surrogacy should be made illegal - there is no right to have a child - along with pornography (use your imagination not someone else's body).

As Sir Pterry said ‘evil begins when you begin to treat people as things’

He knew what he was talking about, that man

Oh bleurgh, but we'll put.

This thread concerns the "right" of one person, usually, but not always a man, to hire another person, usually, but not always, a woman, to masturbate into or over.

Prostitution is rape.

Female porn actresses can't commit rape because rape requires a penis. The men are perhaps also victims of sexual exploitation - by the industry rather than the woman they're acting with.

Actresses are just acting. They consent to being in the roles and to portray a character.

I quote this all the time. So true!

It's hard to believe how easily you seem to miss a point. I don't think you do, actually. I think you pretend to because you have no response to the point.

It's nitpicking to find facile excuses to dismiss anything that does not support your own prejudices, while simply ignoring that which you can find no excuse to dismiss.

I have never mentioned the Nordic model, btw. Who are you talking to here? Are you mistaking me for somebody else?

Your ironclad proof of your claim about Melissa Farley was a single opinion you found quoted on Wikipedia. 🙄
If you're going to be slippery, you'll have to try harder.

Meanwhile you ignored most of what I linked to because you couldn't find a way to dismiss it. This is the essence of disingenuousness in discussion. If somebody offers you evidence, the substance of which you can't refute, just concede the point and move on.

"In the UK, up to 64% of female sex workers report violence at work, up to 46% report anxiety or depression and up to 30% currently inject drugs. Among sex workers attending genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics, prevalence of chlamydia, gonorrhoea and HIV is 10%, 3% and 0.2%, respectively, for women and 25%, 17% and 4% for men."

{snip}

"women who sell sex are 12 times more likely to be murdered than women their age, and male and female sex workers have 1-3 times higher odds of chlamydia and gonorrhoea compared with other GUM clinic attendees."

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/105908/html/

Elon666 may be able to find someone quoted Wikipedia who objects to this, so I leave this here with great trepidation, fearing another devastating refutation.

Sorry, my last post was meant to say "quoted on Wikipedia." Missed the edit deadline.

There's philosophy used as a tool to work through complex ethical problems. And then there's picking and choosing random quotes from different philosophers and throwing the names of fallacies around for the sake of "winning" an argument. Like a particularly annoying sixth former. If you want to set out your own thought processes around utilitarianism, the ethical complexities around prostitution etc then that's one thing. But its just "Haha, X says Y, Look at this person's quote" with no actual analysis or context. That's sometimes called sophistry (although actually probably that's unfair on the original Sophists).

Also I ducked out of this thread a while back but what the hell does declining testosterone have to do with prostitution? Are prostitutes needed to boost men's testosterone levels up? Do men that use prostitutes have higher levels of testosterone (I suspect if there is a correlation it would be a negative one, manly men don't usually have to pay for sex).

"I wank, therefore I am"

😂

That was genius!

It might be true that on mumsnet women have a different view of prostitution from the men. In a recent thread I gave a list of women who are against the Nordic model and pro decriminalisation.

Some of them are academics like Professor Belinda Brooks-Gordon and Dr Petra Boynton. Their job is to find out about prostitution and consider the health needs of women involved in it.

Some of them have written books about prostitution and trafficking, like Emily Kenway. She has been a government advisor and published a book about trafficking. Amia Srinivasan is a philosopher and has published a book about pornography and prostitution.

With all of these women the issue is not so much is it harmful as what happens when you try to ban it. Are the results counterproductive? Does the Nordic model reduce the amount of prostitution? If the Nordic model really reduced the amount of prostitution by half then that would result in half the amount of PTSD.

If on the other hand you allowed women to work together for safety without arresting them as happens in New Zealand but doesn't happen in Sweden, Ireland or the UK (apart from Soho) then the whole pattern of prostitution changes. Women work more together in small groups and brothels tend go out of business.

Is my voice too high too be heard? I'll try again: CRIMINALISE THE PUNTERS AND PIMPS NOT THE PROSTITUTED WOMEN.

IKR. It's not the drug trade. It's not 'victimless' if you remove the criminal aspect.

Do you realize that in evey Nordic model country prostitutes are criminalised? I've said it often enough here pehaps you don't believe me. In Ireland there has been an official report into the effectiveness of the Nordic model there. It was conducted by Dr Geoffrey Shannon. He made a number of criticisms, one was that women are still criminalised. He mentioned the two Romanian women who were the most high profile cases.

I know that they say they believe in not criminalising the women. They are being deceptive. Usually it is not illegal for a woman to be a prostitute. It is illegal though for women to work together, and there are laws about soliciting/loitering.

When Irish Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald was working to bring in the Nordic model she was asked about this. She said that prostitutes would continue to be arrested for 'brothel keeping' (women working together).