vimothy
yurp
Really, nothing?
prostitution
- Thread starter Benny Bunter
- Start date
Really, nothing?
droid
Well-known member
Paint?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Huh? You talking about personal attitudes to paying for sex? I haven't, and I think it's unlikely I ever will, but that's not so much out of a moral stance as out of the idea that "I'm just not the kind of guy who does that kind of thing". Take that how you will. At any rate, it has to do with the unavoidable cultural associations with sordidness, desperation and so on - and, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread, the widespread opinion that any man who pays for sex must be an aggressor, perhaps even little better than a rapist - rather than any ethical concern as such. If I were very wealthy and unattached, or (as some guys do) felt too busy to be in a worthwhile relationship, I could certainly see the attraction.
It's also a self-esteem issue - I'd prefer to think a woman wants to fuck me because she's interested in me qua me, not in the contents of my wallet. (A happy consequence of not being rich is that I'm fairly sure this has been the case so far.)
I know at least a couple of friends of mine have paid for sex, and I don't think any the less of them for it.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
droid
Well-known member
Really, even in an legislative environment where there is a strong likelihood that the person they paid was exploited in some way?
That would be the prime argument against paying for sex IMO - regardless of one's moral stance, you have no way of knowing if the woman involved is actually consenting.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well, I wasn't there on either occasion - but knowing the guys concerned I'm fairly sure neither of them would have been raring to go with a terrified and visibly bruised teenager. Of course, a prostitute might not be that obviously exploited and yet still be in that situation for reasons beyond her control, I accept that. Then again, the same could be said about many people doing many kinds of jobs.
Really, though, it quickly comes down to a definition of 'exploitation'. In the Marxist view, anyone is who is paid a wage by anyone else is exploited, aren't they? Taking that stance, you'd find yourself very limited for choice of where to spend your money if boycotted every shop, pub, restaurant etc. that was 'exploiting' its workers.
droid
Well-known member
Right, so its bad if the women involved are 'visibly bruised teenagers', whereas a seemingly cheerful & healthy migrant in her 20's whose family has been threatened and is forced to give up 90% of her income if she ever wants to see her passport again is OK? Isnt a main pillar of the argument for decriminalisation that exploitation and abuse is much more likely under the current conditions?
droid
Well-known member
lol. Ok, almost nothing.
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
interesting little study here
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/pdfs/Farleyetal2011ComparingSexBuyers.pdf
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
from that study i just posted:
Both sex buyers and non-sex buyers evidenced extensive knowledge of the physical and psychological harms of prostitution. Two thirds of both the sex buyers and the non-sex buyers observed that a majority of women are lured, tricked, or trafficked into prostitution.
Many of the men had an awareness of the economic coercion and the lack of alternatives in women's entry into prostitution.
Almost all of the sex buyers and non-sex buyers shared the opinion that minor children are almost always available for prostitution in bars, massage parlors, escort and other prostitution in Boston.
The knowledge that the women have been exploited, coerced, pimped, or trafficked failed to deter sex buyers from buying sex. Many of the sex buyers had used women who were controlled by pimps at the time they used her for sex. Sex buyers in this study seemed to justify their involvement in the sex industry by stating their belief that women in prostitution are essentially different from non-prostituting women.
UFO over easy
online mahjong
response to farley's research by PS - http://prostitutescollective.net/2012/07/17/response-to-melissa-farley/ - huge amount of manipulated data and misrepresentation going on.
the PS response also contains hard stats from independent studies with citations regarding the numbers of sex workers who themselves report to have been coerced into sex work - as opposed to farley's approach of asking people for their 'observations' of others circumstances, which seems oddly un-academic and casual for an academic. additionally i'm beginning to resent having to articulate again and again that calls for decrim/regulation are not recommendations that 'pimps' be allowed to continue exploiting minors.
It's important to note the word 'economic' in that sentence. A lot of people are economically coerced into working by awkward things like having to pay rent and buy food.
This is obviously disgusting and very sad. I believe it to be at least in part a by-product of criminalisation - sex work and buying sex are both illegal in Boston where your study was conducted.
This line is one you also seem to take elsewhere in this thread, although maybe not in the same essentialist sense. You appear to think that sex work fundamentally impacts on a person's ability to function 'normally', regardless of context. Relatedly, as it's been buried upthread, I want to post this talk by a sex worker again - http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/What-do-sex-workers-want-Toni-M - and recommend everyone watch it.
the PS response also contains hard stats from independent studies with citations regarding the numbers of sex workers who themselves report to have been coerced into sex work - as opposed to farley's approach of asking people for their 'observations' of others circumstances, which seems oddly un-academic and casual for an academic. additionally i'm beginning to resent having to articulate again and again that calls for decrim/regulation are not recommendations that 'pimps' be allowed to continue exploiting minors.
Benny B said:
It's important to note the word 'economic' in that sentence. A lot of people are economically coerced into working by awkward things like having to pay rent and buy food.
Benny B said:
This is obviously disgusting and very sad. I believe it to be at least in part a by-product of criminalisation - sex work and buying sex are both illegal in Boston where your study was conducted.
This line is one you also seem to take elsewhere in this thread, although maybe not in the same essentialist sense. You appear to think that sex work fundamentally impacts on a person's ability to function 'normally', regardless of context. Relatedly, as it's been buried upthread, I want to post this talk by a sex worker again - http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/What-do-sex-workers-want-Toni-M - and recommend everyone watch it.
Last edited:
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
The men who buy sex do think of prostitutes as being different from other women (from their wives and girlfriends for a start), because they are considered to be their property once the money has been handed over – not because of criminalisation. They either enjoy the dominance, don’t care, or choose to ignore the risk that they are taking advantage of a vulnerable person’s position of weakness.
Ben, we all have to pay the rent and buy food. We do not all fall into prostitution as a result of financial hardship: vulnerable women and girls do. The idea that regularization would somehow protect women, that prostiution is just a job like any other, is a lie sold by the men who want to maintain this status quo. So that vulnerable people continue to believe there is no alternative and can be no alternative (and perpetuated by arguments like, ‘you’re going to have to find a lot of jobs’ – as someone said upthread – that it’s an unrealistic pipe dream to create alternatives).
The elephant in the room, the thing that nobody here seems to really want to talk about, is that our society is defined by its patriarchal and capitalist (obv the two go hand in hand) structure. Prostitution exists to serve men, their need to dominate and control women – a pool of women is created to cater to their every desire (if dworkin is a bit much for you, Mexican journalist Lydia Cacho is very good on this if you can find her stuff in English). They are conditioned, usually from a young age (the younger the better), and attracted or kept there by financial desperation, coercion and manipulation. As a matter of pure survival, the abused are bonded to their abusers and come to rely on them (this is also one of the reasons why women who are beaten, abused and raped by their partners often do not leave them).
Meanwhile men are conditioned into the idea that it is normal to buy sex from somebody whenever they want it – there’s no need to go through the hassle of building a relationship in which their desire is reciprocated. And all the while behind this dynamic are the men who profit financially from it. The demand and the desire to inflict violence grows, as the respect for women diminishes (hence the '2 bratwurst, 2 beers and all you can fuck for 70 euros' german mega-brothels that have emerged under 'regularisation'). Nobody, including those women who ‘independently choose’ prostitution as a way of life, is outside this dynamic. That’s why I look to the feminists for guidance, to those who are talking about gender and patriarchy, and certainly do not exclusively limit myself to what the prostitutes themselves have to say (who in any case are not, and can never be, represented by the tiny percentage of prostitutes who have organized into alliances like the NWSP). And that’s why droid’s question about buying sex is not just relevant, but absolutely key to the debate.
Ben, we all have to pay the rent and buy food. We do not all fall into prostitution as a result of financial hardship: vulnerable women and girls do. The idea that regularization would somehow protect women, that prostiution is just a job like any other, is a lie sold by the men who want to maintain this status quo. So that vulnerable people continue to believe there is no alternative and can be no alternative (and perpetuated by arguments like, ‘you’re going to have to find a lot of jobs’ – as someone said upthread – that it’s an unrealistic pipe dream to create alternatives).
The elephant in the room, the thing that nobody here seems to really want to talk about, is that our society is defined by its patriarchal and capitalist (obv the two go hand in hand) structure. Prostitution exists to serve men, their need to dominate and control women – a pool of women is created to cater to their every desire (if dworkin is a bit much for you, Mexican journalist Lydia Cacho is very good on this if you can find her stuff in English). They are conditioned, usually from a young age (the younger the better), and attracted or kept there by financial desperation, coercion and manipulation. As a matter of pure survival, the abused are bonded to their abusers and come to rely on them (this is also one of the reasons why women who are beaten, abused and raped by their partners often do not leave them).
Meanwhile men are conditioned into the idea that it is normal to buy sex from somebody whenever they want it – there’s no need to go through the hassle of building a relationship in which their desire is reciprocated. And all the while behind this dynamic are the men who profit financially from it. The demand and the desire to inflict violence grows, as the respect for women diminishes (hence the '2 bratwurst, 2 beers and all you can fuck for 70 euros' german mega-brothels that have emerged under 'regularisation'). Nobody, including those women who ‘independently choose’ prostitution as a way of life, is outside this dynamic. That’s why I look to the feminists for guidance, to those who are talking about gender and patriarchy, and certainly do not exclusively limit myself to what the prostitutes themselves have to say (who in any case are not, and can never be, represented by the tiny percentage of prostitutes who have organized into alliances like the NWSP). And that’s why droid’s question about buying sex is not just relevant, but absolutely key to the debate.
Last edited:
droid
Well-known member
Which? Socks and sandals?
droid
Well-known member
This is clearly and demonstrably untrue, as those lobbying hardest for legalisation are sex workers themselves
So, since patriarchy and capitalism are not going away and the current structures are clearly not working, then a better way to deal with the problem must be found
Once again, this is not always true. It may be true for the majority, but it is not always true.
No they arent - I certainly am not anyway, and, as I mentioned above, there is, and will always be (I think) a stigma attached to prostitution.
Its relevant in teasing out attitudes - I don't think its key - its like asking people to stop taking drugs because of the criminality of the supply chain.
droid
Well-known member
This is a weak argument and I think you know it. Sure, according to Marx all wage labour is exploitation, but very few jobs require the loss of personal & bodily integrity, potential emotional impact, level of intimacy etc. required by prostitution. Pretty sure you'd make a fairly severe distinction if you were in that position yourself.