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, Linda Lovelace said she had a gun pointed at her to participate, I honestly don’t know if any male porn stars have alleged that.

Here's an archive link for those without a subscription, it's worth a read

https://archive.ph/5CbXc

I actually stumbled across a blog once written by a guy who used prostitutes (I'm not sure how as I was googling for information on a shipwreck on the Dee), the little I read was utterly alien.

A recent thread about what people have been through included someone that had been trafficked into prostitution. In general how would a punter know this is the case? As a man can't tell if the woman is making a free choice he should assume she might not be in my opinion.

> Why is a sexual barter different than a time or mind barter? A consultant would rather be with their family, but they are offering their mind and time in exchange for money.

Because sex is different from other kinds of activities. In general we object to people being coerced into labor as well (which is why slavery is no longer legal) but everyone understands that being forced to have sex is different from being forced to do other things that don't involve the inside of your body being invaded. That's why parents can be arrested for sexually abusing their children, but not for forcing their children to clean their rooms.

They don't care. It's that simple.

As Chesterton said, morals are like art - you have to start by drawing a line somewhere

Let's face it, any man who is prepared to pay to have anonymous sex, is prepared to have sex with a person who has been coerced/trafficked/ forced.

Prostitution is just wrong, and it doesn’t surprise me that the people who advocate for prostitution are also 99% of the time the same people that advocate for men in women’s spaces and also think there’s nothing wrong with surrogacy. Just shilling for men, that really is not feminism by any stretch of the imagination.

This. Anyone who finds it acceptable for men to buy women’s bodies for sex is clearly a misogynist who doesn’t see us as full humans, so it all follows.

Recently I've been struck by the thought that any work involves ownership of a person's mind and or body to some extent; whether that is time in an office, manual work which will wear out the body, high risk work or being in the forces during a war where the risk of death or serious injury is high. It's money in exchange for time, skills or tasks completed.

Yes sex work is different but is it worse than being sent to war which you're being paid for?

What about conscription?

What is the difference between prostitution and service in the armed forces ?

Well for the present in the UK it's a career choice to join a profession where you expect you will be doing something for the national good or international good. You might be involved in humanitarian and peace keeping projects, not just defensive projects. You will start with a decent wage and benefits package; you will have the opportunity to acquire training and other skills which when you leave are likely to be transferable in the job market ; you can stay and move up the ranks. The armed services also have one of the best pension schemes going.

For countries where there is conscription the service can be military or social projects but the intention is it for the good of the country concerned and apart from specific exceptions applies to everyone.

Prostitution on the other hand - well really none of that applies and it's damaging to societal good.

I don't think people should be conscripted into the Armed Forces either 🤷🏼‍♀️

War is horrible.
There is a particular kind of horror/sadness in very young people (usually mostly men though this varies) marching of to war and possible death.
Nonetheless, the majority of casualties in almost all conflicts are civilians. America in particular is lucky in that almost all its wars were fought overseas - so it had the "soldiers go of to war, civilians stay safe at home" as a trope. Because of America's cultural dominance this has infiltrated the broader consciousness of what war is. However, even though (for example) "only American men got drafted into Vietnam, women stayed home" lots and lots of women (and children) died.

And there is a reason some people almost reflexively bring up men having to suffer in war whenever women being coerced into sex is brought up. Its because on some level the right to do the latter was viewed as a reward for the former. But the fact that some men do go to war does not justify any man coercing women into sex.

I am not saying this is what you were doing @Spamfreet and this is a bit off topic....
But I have extremely limited patience for men who have never been to war, would probably not qualify for conscription anyway, using the fact that some men go to war as justification for absolutely terrible things being done to women (and girls and boys) in their own country in peacetime. It would be different if they were motivated by pacifism or were really concerned about soldiers safety. But normally its just piggybacking on the perceived sacrifice of other men to justify really seedy stuff. It always gets brought up, and often by the same people who would decry identity politics or talk about "not all men" in other situations. Well... if you want to claim my great grandfathers WW2 death at the age of 22 as one of yours, then you also have to claim responsibility for all the mass murderers, rapists and Audi drivers. Them's the rules.

One major difference I can think of offhand is that if you're in the military, over time your pay will go up because you gain experience. If you are prostituted, the opposite is true.

There's many things which people think "you shouldn't have to do" but which society determines are for the greater good.

Rishi Sunak was mocked for considering conscription but it turns out the UK is an outlier in Europe in not having some sort of compulsory national service.

Although frankly the argument that being a prostitute is no different from being a soldier doesn't hold together anyway.

The casualty rate in the British army was 51 per 100,000 in 2022
There were a total of 19 fatalities and 106 injuries in the offshore oil and gas industry in the United States from 2015 to 2020. So about 4 fatalities a year on average in an industry which employs over 100,000 people.
45 fatal injuries occurred within the UK construction industry in 2022.

These are all terrible. But they absolutely pale in comparison to the mortality rate for sex workers from murder, drug overdose, violence. And that isn't counting the physical assaults, violent rapes etc that are considered part of the job. Or the daily experience of having to have sex with often deeply unpleasant, repellent men. Comparing it to other industries is not only really disingenuous its quite frankly insulting to people that work in those industries. While there have been some scandals about army abuse etc I think everyone would agree that a man in the army being expected to let his boss have sex with him was a Bad Thing that shouldn't happen. Not a central part of the job (this isn't Russia).

And I bet if most people's boss asked him/her to photocopy some documents they'd be fine even if it wasn't part of their normal remit. If they asked them for a blowjob it would be sexual harrassment.

I wonder how many of the whatabouters have actually ever met a woman affected by the issues they deem not "as bad" and it's just like enlisting in the army or whatever other job fits their narrative.

Not many, I would wager, especially not those with inflated ideas of the remuneration!

Across countries, 73 percent reported physical assault in prostitution, 62 percent reported having been raped since entering prostitution, 67 percent met criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. On average, 92 percent stated that they wanted to leave prostitution.

But Suzie loooooves her job and her choices and it's not that bad anyways.

Perhaps prostituted women should be awarded medals and ranks. Seats in the House of Lords, there can be schools like Sandhurst for them to learn how to sell their bodies and they can earn commissions. Sunak wants to bring back national service in some form. Perhaps instead of going into one branch of the armed forces there could be Government run brothels as an alternative 🤔

Am I being a tad sarky? Yes, yes I am.

I don't think it's helpful to call prostitution rape. We should pick our words carefully and ensure that all types of male sexual predation / dominance / misbehaviour are correctly described and categorised.

Personally, I do tend towards believing that consent can be bought or bartered. So consensual and therefore (in my view) morally acceptable prostitution could theoretically be possible. But the reality of the situation is very different from that theoretical basis, and so on balance the right approach must always be to help women get out of it, and encourage men to stop it.

As an aside, I've also never agreed with the hardcore feminists 'all sex is rape' argument (I mean I follow the logic, I just think it's counterproductive and will make most normal people roll their eyes and see feminism as crazy).

If we’re even making comparisons between prostitution and war, SURELY that’s telling us all something about it?

If we’re going to go there though at least in war we have ceasefires and peace. Where is the ceasefire and peacetime for women?

Makes somber reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/21/selling-sex-is-highly-dangerous-treating-it-like-a-regular-job-only-makes-it-worse

This de haut en bas infantilising position has no logical basis.

Anyone can consent to whatever they want, as long as they are not coerced, and money is not coercion.

No one can dictate the level of enthusiasm you need to have in order to have sex. Rape is sex without consent (or in law, the man needs to believe that you didn’t consent).

Where do people stand on things like Only Fans? Is physical sex the only limit or any use of body to make money?

Isn't using the phrase de haut en bas, technically de haut en bas though? Its a conundrum.