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?

That Sonia Sodha article, well worth reading or rereading btw, has a link to the Invisible Man project, about men who used women in prostitution

https://prostitutionresearch.com/the-invisible-men-project/

I've haven't time to look at it just now.

As an aside, the article mentions Keith Vaz, I'm sure I saw something the other day about him being politically rehabilitated!

@VoodooQualities I would suspect very few people on here would think all sex was rape. it was always quite a fringe position. Actually I don't think Andrea Dworkin even thought all sex was rape really. She was arguing something slightly different. But that's by the by...

Its a fact that lots of prostitutes have experienced rape as a result of their extremely hazardous lifestyles. That would rather imply that there is a difference between the "normal" encounters(where men pay money to have sex with women who don't want to have sex with them) and those violent ones. So probably it is helpful to keep a distinction so its still possible for the women and others to talk about being raped on the job. So I do agree with you - expanding the definition to far risks lessening its impact. But then, having sex with someone you know for a fact doesn't want to have sex with you certainly sounds like rape. Or rape adjacent.

And as far as people's right to choose goes.... Do I have the right to buy a kidney or liver on the open market if my own are dodgy/failing. Do other people have the right to sell their organs on the open market - their body, their choice and it could be lifting a family out of poverty. (Organs sell for absolutely loads.) Do I have the "right" to pay a homeless man a tenner to pour hot coffee over himself for my own amusement. Its his choice, and its patronising to imply we know best for him which is what we are implying if we say its immoral for me to do that. If the free choice argument doesn't hold for that, why does it hold for prostitution?

Umm I’m not necessarily in the camp that argues prostitution is rape vociferously I do believe it’s overwhelmingly harmful. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly enough to warrant discussion and action. That’s sufficient to either make it illegal or at the very least heavily regulated.

However to your statement prostitution is rape has no logic to it baffles me. The logic is clear, if rape is sex engaged in without consent either by force or coercion, any woman, man or child engaging in it because of poverty, addiction an abusive partner or whatever meets the standard. The consent is violated because the choice is taken under threat of dire consequences. There is coercion ergo there is rape.

Where I think the debate is getting bogged down is who are we holding responsible? The individual having sex with the prostitute is certainly a popular person to finger point towards. Although I’m not sure that is good enough in and of itself. Any individual using prostitutes isn’t by themselves singularly responsible for any individual prostitutes economic. I.E. they are not the source of the coercion but they are certainly exploiting it.

What I’m left with and this is an unsettling conclusion is that I myself am responsible for the coercion. Now again not individually or exclusively, but I’m an adult in a democratic society and I vote in a society that has allowed such economic privation to exist as to make sex work the rational action for many operating prostitutes. Note I’m not infantilising them I’m taking taking ownership for my part incrementally small as it may be in this whole sordid business.

I get why it’s attractive to promote the notion consent can be purchased, because it lets me off the hook. Places the entire moral responsibility squarely on the shoulders on the person with the LEAST agency and the most likely to come to harm. We can then collectively wash our hands of it all and move on. I’m not however entirely convinced that we should…

Yep. Keith Vaz is standing for election as an independent in Leicester.
Appears to be blaming his use of sex workers on his MH

I personally get frustrated that the debate is always about whether prostitutes consent.
I'd rather talk about whether the users understand consent and what that says about their attitudes to women. Anyone who can get aroused by having sex with a woman who doesn't want it and is doing it for cash is in my opinion demonstrating an entitled view about sex and a laxity about consent. I'd expect that kind of man to be sexually coercive or even a rapist in other settings as well.
Legitimising prostitution feeds into and legitimises those entitled coercive views and therefore its not something I as a feminist can support.

@Dervel ,

‘Umm I’m not necessarily in the camp that argues prostitution is rape vociferously I do believe it’s overwhelmingly harmful. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly enough to warrant discussion and action. That’s sufficient to either make it illegal or at the very least heavily regulated.’

I actually tend to agree with this, although favour regulation over making it illegal.

‘The logic is clear, if rape is sex engaged in without consent either by force or coercion, any woman, man or child engaging in it because of poverty, addiction an abusive partner or whatever meets the standard. The consent is violated because the choice is taken under threat of dire consequences. There is coercion ergo there is rape.’

This is where I disagree. We have to be careful about what coercion means. It means an imminent threat of violence or something that causes genuine fear. So people trafficking and pimps coerce prostitutes. Poverty is completely different. Otherwise, you could argue that working for Amazon is coerced labour; no one would choose to work under those conditions unless they chose to.

@CassieMaddox ,

I think that you are pushing an agenda not backed up by data. Biology is also important here. We are evolved chimpanzees, and some of us not that evolved! Young men get horny and will hump a sofa if that is all that is available. And then bring alcohol into the equation and it is hardly a logical decision.

Are drunken women on hen dos who give BJs to strippers, or middle aged women who go to Gambia coercive?

We can agree that the sex trade is worrying and needs to be regulated because of the strong possibility of actual coercion, but the idea of all paid sex being coercion is way too simplistic.

I think that you are pushing an agenda not backed up by data. Biology is also important here. We are evolved chimpanzees, and some of us not that evolved! Young men get horny and will hump a sofa if that is all that is available. And then bring alcohol into the equation and it is hardly a logical decision.

This is a different argument but I think once and for all we need to make a decision.
EITHER men, especially young men, are driven by their biology to the point that it often causes great harm. This can't be helped it is the way men are and you should be careful how much you try to change that inherent nature. Instead we need to work around it (women exercise caution, regulate prostitution so they can satisfy their urges etc)

OR the idea that men are inherently dangerous/that masculinity can be toxic is evil feminist propaganda. Its not fair to talk about men's sexuality as if it is somehow destructive or hard to control. Women are just as bad.

What has been playing out since at least the seventies is often really harmful behaviour being handwaved away with a boys will be boys attitude "its just behaviour". But then when the reaction is "well, if its just male nature to be like that then male nature is harmful". The response is "you can't stereotype men" etc, how dare you say we are basically chimps. And rinse and repeat for decades.

We are all products of our biology but basic ethics says that we have a responsibility to control our behaviour where that causes massive harm to other human beings. Most people understand this but have a huge blind spot in this one area.

The Gambia thing is coercive and gross by the way. It actually isn't the worst thing that goes on in the Gambia by a long shot I’ve seen UK paedos preying on Gambian children and it’s Britain’s fault, says UN official – The Sun | The Sun

You could say its proof that men are always worse than women if we want to be stupid about this. or we could take it as an example that beneath a well-publicised, form of sexual transaction (that while seedy is seen as comparatively less harmful) a much darker, evil trade is happening. And that maybe the less harmful face of this is helping to distract attention from the other. In short - not a great argument for legal prostitution.

I'm an evolutionary biologist by training. So nice try but no "agenda" here just an opiniom. Chimps aren't humans and don't use prostitutes so chimp sexuality is irrelevant. Most young men aren't sexually incontinent and the ones that are, are a problem for society, not something we should just live with.

All paid sex is coercion. Exchanging money for sex with someone who wouldn't touch you with a bargepole is gross and disrespectful of consent. Very very few women do it (as shown by the complete absence of "massage parlours" for women in the UK). Sexual incontinence is a male problem.

@CassieMaddox ,

‘Chimps aren't humans and don't use prostitutes so chimp sexuality is irrelevant.’

There is a fair bit of evidence that they do.

https://animalscene.mb.com.ph/scientists-taught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-then-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/

It isn’t irrelevant anyway. Why would it be?

Oh great. Humans corrupting chimps with their morals, ethical.

I've taught my dog to stand on his hind legs for a treat. That doesn't make dogs bipedal.

Sorry that was snarky of me. That's actually quite an interesting article

@CassieMaddox ,

They didn’t teach them how to behave, just wanted to see if they would use a unit of exchange rather than barter.

What they did with the tokens was entirely up to them.

Not to be pedantic but they were capuchin monkeys not chimps. (hashtag notallprimates). I don't think an Orangutan would ever do such a thing (though sadly they are victims of humans sex trafficking them sometimes but I'm not going to link the article because I have had enough of human depravity for one day and its too sad :( )

@biscuitandcake ,

This is a slightly more academic link, albeit also not chimps but bonobos. It does show the idea of exchanging sex for other desirable commodities goes back to even before human times.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98894-w

@biscuitandcake ,

I did find the same article I think, and it was sickening, people can be very depraved.

@Newbutoldfather Ok, but Bonobo's are very very different to chimps still. The males behaviour in particular is completely different. And I would argue both are very different to humans. If we were Bonobo's we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place since we would all be totes sex positive but also peaceful and altruistic to all. A liberal feminist utopia. If we were chimps then the most extreme radical feminists would be right and all men really would be rapists. I do not like this picking and choosing of evolutionary biology/other species behaviour to suit arguments that goes on.

Although, I am considering a thesis now on how football hooliganism and male violence would be solved if the two warring parties could be persuaded to just shag each other....

Are you thinking of blue is the warmest colour? It's an awful film

@biscuitandcake ,

Bonobos are apparently more violent than their image, albeit less than chimps.

I guess your football hooligan ‘solution’ kind of happens in prisons…

What you are talking of is the assumption that 'sex work is work'. It isn't. Whether prostitution or pornography the women involved are coerced by need, by drugs, by mistreated. Yes, they are raped. They are paid to be raped. Few go into prostitution as a good career move and the idea of the courtesan, who freely decides on this life is a myth. Women who had been raped and were considered, because of this, soiled, often became courtesans. Yes, they had a better life than women on the streets, but they were still 'things' for the use of the men who could afford their price for being raped.

@Newbutoldfather

‘Umm I’m not necessarily in the camp that argues prostitution is rape vociferously I do believe it’s overwhelmingly harmful. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly enough to warrant discussion and action. That’s sufficient to either make it illegal or at the very least heavily regulated.’

‘I actually tend to agree with this, although favour regulation over making it illegal.’

I just don’t see how the right to buy sex is a crucial human right that needs to be preserved.

‘The logic is clear, if rape is sex engaged in without consent either by force or coercion, any woman, man or child engaging in it because of poverty, addiction an abusive partner or whatever meets the standard. The consent is violated because the choice is taken under threat of dire consequences. There is coercion ergo there is rape.’

‘This is where I disagree. We have to be careful about what coercion means. It means an imminent threat of violence or something that causes genuine fear. So people trafficking and pimps coerce prostitutes. Poverty is completely different. Otherwise, you could argue that working for Amazon is coerced labour; no one would choose to work under those conditions unless they chose to.’

You are of course welcome to disagree, but my logic is sound. Which was my initial objection to your claim that this line of reasoning lacked logic in the first place. We do not need to be careful about what coercion means, the first job in philosophy is to call things by their proper names. One could follow on from my case that Amazon is coerced Labour, of course you could, but why would you be frightened to take to the discussion there if that in truth is what is happening? If coercion is undesirable and something we should seek to reduce it wherever possible why not call a spade a spade? Why the need for rhetorical flourishes to obsfucate the meaning of a word for fear of its application where it fits?

Back to the topic at hand, whilst I am by no means deaf to the conditions Amazon workers exist under, they are not to my knowledge as vulnerable to physical violence, post traumatic stress disorders and the general deterioration of mental health many sex workers endure. I’m assuming by your username, I think I can safely assume we are both fathers, so let me ask you this: whilst I’m sure neither would be ecstatic if our kids went on to work in an Amazon warehouse, and despite them being adults I’m sure we would be willing to within reason help in supporting them improve their future employment prospects, right? If any of our kids got into prostitution what lengths would we not go to help them exit as soon as humanely possible?

All I’m asking is to apply that gut gnawing worry we would feel for our own kids, and extrapolate that to those who maybe don’t have fathers like us or who if they do are unable or unwilling to go up to bat for them. Fun and games with apes & monkeys aside I think we can set ourselves a higher bar than that!! I’m afraid when it comes to the general problems in the world when you look into it in any depth you come to realise that this IS our circus and those very much ARE our monkeys…

Yes, people should be able to speak for themselves. Ex-prostitutes have. They don't see it as normal work and they tell horrifying stories. Sex positivity has had this effect: that prostitution and pornography are empowering for women - they are not, and all the evidence we have already makes that plain.
And prostitution and pornography are world-wide. The girls prostituted in Asia, in Africa need voices to speak up for them, because they live in far more misogynistic societies than we do. We are supposed to help those in prison, and women prostituted in third-world countries are certainly in prison - there is no escape. So we must speak up for them.

Feminism has always seen prostitution (and pornography) as exploiting women, because it does. To tell feminists not to say this, to say a prostitute is paid to be raped, is to tell them not to be feminists, not to speak up for women who are oppressed and have no voice.

Let’s not beat about the bush either the majority of prostitutes are survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/early-sexual-exploitation-influence-prostitution-child-abuse-p-195#:~:text=Results%20documented%20high%20levels%20of,of%20two%20or%20three%20times.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12968660/

I think if we’re having this conversation we should do so in possession of the full facts. Writing off prostitutes as fallen women, happy hookers or whatever moniker your political/cultural affiliations dictate that enable the status quo to continue.

These are flesh and blood human beings that we (as a society) failed utterly as little girls. Wouldn’t it be lovely that upon reaching adulthood they stepped out into a world that didn’t reinforce the abuse they survived? That they exist simply to be sexually exploited by an endless succession of men happy and willing to do so with precious little consideration of their basic humanity, and a wider world that enables it all under the banner of “choice”? Can’t we just decide collectively to draw a line in the sand here, and say no more?

I’m not naive I know suddenly convincing a load of punters of any of that is a losing proposition, that it’ll still happen in criminal corners of the world, but can we at least commit to a wider societal message that it’s not okay?