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?

@ElonGates666 who else, but you, has kept talking about "the Nodic model"?
Edited due to auto carrot

It is people who use the word 'objecification' without understanding what it means who are behaving like annoying sixth formers. I have tried to explain to people on this thread about the various theories of objectification but they won't have it.

When people use the word 'objectify' I want to say to them which theory is the one you believe in? Is it the one that says that all sex outside of marriage is wrong (Kant), or the one that says that women are objectified every time they have sex with men even if they are married (MacKinnon and Dworkin).

Martha Nussbaum's development of the theory of objectification is the only one that makes sense (unless you're a Radical Feminist Lesbian or Louise Perry). It isn't specifically about sexuality. I don't think that most people here want to understand 'the ethical complexities around prostitution'. If I thought that I would recommend Professor Amia Srinivasan's book 'The Right to Sex'.

I don't think it is appropriate for any one poster to attempt to set the parameters of a discussion. I also don't think that any poster can decide which definition of a word, where there is any possible difference, is the only one to be used. The general dictionary definition will usually be followed, especially in a discussion in English.

The evidence from London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine seems to be about drug addicted street based prostitutes. They don't tell you that though, which is quite deceptive. If you look at their first reference, to 'Health needs and service use of parlour-based prostitutes compared with street-based prostitutes: a cross-sectional survey' by N Jeal and C Salisbury it is interesting their conclusions.

"Conclusions: The two groups had very different health experiences, risk-taking behaviour and use of services. To be effective in improving health, different types of service delivered in different settings for different groups are required."

You obviously haven't read it all through.

"How effective are different international approaches at addressing any harms associated with buying and selling sex?
As mentioned above, studies highlighted that in Sweden and Canada, criminalisation of clients did not improve access to services nor reduce sex workers’ experiences of violence.* *Evidence included in our qualitative synthesis clearly shows that criminalisation of clients does not facilitate access to services, nor reduce violence against sex workers. This is supported by the epidemiological evidence from Vancouver that showed that the introduction of more severe laws against the purchase of sex alongside fewer sanctions for sex workers (modelled on the Swedish Law) did not result in reduced violence from clients32.33

Despite the fact the Swedish Law was motivated by a desire to end the demand for sex work, findings from our qualitative synthesis suggest that these enforcement strategies that seek to reduce the numbers of sex workers34 or clients 31are unlikely to achieve these effects, since the economic needs of sex workers remain unchanged, resulting in sex workers having to work longer hours, accept greater risks, and deprioritise health. There is no reliable evidence from Sweden that the numbers of sex workers have decreased since the law changed in 1999. 22
In New Zealand, following decriminalisation, sex workers reported being better able to refuse clients and insist on condom use, amid improved relationships with police and managers. However, migrants continue to be excluded from this system. Studies in Guatemala, Mexico, Turkey and Nevada, US showed how regulatory models exacerbate disparities within sex worker communities. They enabled access to safer conditions for some, but excluded the majority (including the most marginalised). Under these models non-compliance with regulatory systems including working in tolerance zones, regulator venues and/or mandatory registration at a health care facility and mandatory HIV/STI testing results in criminalisation.

In conclusion, the public health evidence supports decriminalisation, when coupled with inclusive policies to protect the safety and health of sex workers, including the funding and scale-up of specialist and sex-worker-led services that help address the multiple and diverse health and social care needs of people who sell sex."

I would have thought it was fairly obvious that only criminalising the punters and pimps without putting in services for the women, would not reduce the incidence of violence, or the number of women being prostituted.
I'm still fascinated by anyone who thinks the continued prostitution of women is a "good thing"

Oh, here we go again. Yet another facile dismissal based entirely on an assumption you have made about the source material. What a surprise.

I'm not getting why street prostitutes, according to you, somehow don't count. As long as prostitution exists, there will be street prostitution.

That was rhetorical, so don't bother answering. I have no further interest in dealing with your greasy tactics.

Nope. I'm not reading a long, irrelevant screed about the Nordic model, which I never once mentioned. You just won't discuss this honestly and I've had enough of these long, non-responsive rants about subjects you brought up, not me. You're essentially talking to yourself.

This is what he does. He decides we're discussing the Nordic model, though he's the only one talking about it. Now he thinks he can decide we are having a philosophical discussion about objectification, though he's the only one talking about that. That gives him an excuse for yet another long, pedantic post.😴

How a thread, discussing prostitution as rape, morphs into an apologists rationale for using random women's bodies for sex, bemuses me.

A man deciding what objectification means on MN no less. He's got quotes from some women who agree with him so that's 'right'. Actually experiencing it isn't good enough.

And yes, deciding that we are talking about the Nordic Model when what we are talking about is the act of having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you. He's incredibly invested in models that don't criminalise the men, while pretending it's about not criminalising the women. We're not fucking stupid.

they're like flies to fucking shit aren't they?

no sign of these no marks on other threads. but any whiff of the idea that men wouldn't get to pay to fuck unwilling women, children and men and up these men turn with their stupid fucking arguments

The point of the Nordic model is to discourage punters by shaming them. Making it a criminal offence to run a brothel is not new and not part of the Nordic model, but part of the laws most countries have on prostitution. Brothels are illegal in the UK too.
Making brothels illegal is meant to protect prostitutes by preventing 'maison close', where women can be held against their will i.e. they are sex slaves.

Because you cannot EVER talk about the rapey entitled punters. It's like they don't exist and have no influence on the existence of prostitutes.

Meanwhile it's obvious to everyone reading what kind of man wants to spend his life justifying how come buying sex from a woman who would ordinarily not be at all interested is just fine.

Bleurgh

I don't think that most people here want to understand 'the ethical complexities around prostitution'.

There are no "ethical complexities" to understand. There is no ethical justification for prostitution..

If I thought that I would recommend Professor Amia Srinivasan's book 'The Right to Sex'.

Not heard of this. Google would suggest it's an enourmous pile of PoMo cobblers.

PoMo cobblers

Ah yes, so much of this. For the idiots in the back. We understand post modernism, we just know it's cobblers.

I didn't bother reading matey's posts because frankly, I've identified him as someone my life would be better without, so I missed 'The Right To Sex'.

That's a phrase used by rapey twats the world over innit?

There is no right to sex. Humans should have the freedom to see if they can find other humans who want to have sex with them, sure. But want to are the operative words here. No one ever died from lack of sex. There is no blanket right to sex. Man alive some people get life and being human so fucking wrong.

Some women are trafficked, and tricked into prostitution. They are sex slaves. No doubt that they are being raped.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JLVS8pCPTq4&pp=ygUeZmVtaW5pc3QgaGVyaXRpY3MgcmlnaHQgdG8gc2V4
Feminist Heritics have an episode on Srinivasan's book.
"There isn't" being the 2 word version.