Paying for sex

Raconteuse

I don't know if anyone here is actually saying there should be no prostitution, or are they? And I don't know that anyone is saying ALL prostitutes are not doing so of their own free will.

There is nothing wrong with paying for sex imo. It is an important service I think. There are men who can't get a girlfriend or just a one-night stand, and the lack of sexual intimacy is unbearable for them obviously. Nature makes things that way. Look how unhappy it makes them - you don't even have to stray from these pages to see it.

But jeez, every time someone brings up the sex trafficking or drug addiction angle, there is such defensiveness. Real "lady doth protest too much" stuff. Same when the dark side to porn is brought up.

Yes there are women who choose to be prostitutes and live a comfortable life, but not every prostitute is a happy hooker/high-class escort. You're seriously in denial to be telling yourself that. It is of course e.g. gonna be a last resort for drug addicts

"I know a few and they want to do it" - is that supposed to mean that it applies to all prostitutes so? Because that's pretty lacking in terms of evidence/logic.

coffee_cake

Raconteuse wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with paying for sex imo. It is an important service I think.

I am probably getting more conservative (or 2nd wave) as i get older, but women's bodies are not a service.

Men who 'can't get' a girlfriend are not entitled to one. we're not cars. we're not phones.
there is enough dehumanisation of women going on around the world.

riclad

IF an adult with money wants to pay for sex thats their business .
Make it legal. maybe let it be a job like a waitress,
and maybe tax it like any other job.
its, the oldest profession, as long as no one is forced to do it, its ok.
Like drugs, making it illegal just provide,s extra money to criminals .
i think at the moment it,s legal if one person does, it.
i think some women do it because the money is good,
its better than working in retail.
Also they can set their own hour,s .
They pay no tax .

JustJoe7240

bluewolf wrote: »

I am probably getting more conservative (or 2nd wave) as i get older, but women's bodies are not a service.

Men who 'can't get' a girlfriend are not entitled to one. we're not cars. we're not phones.
there is enough dehumanisation of women going on around the world.

But if a woman wants to offer her body "as a service", Is she not entitled to do so?

Bobblehats

JustJoe7240 wrote: »

But if a woman wants to offer her body "as a service", Is she not entitled to do so?

dvdman1

riclad wrote: »

IF an adult with money wants to pay for sex thats their business .
Make it legal. maybe let it be a job like a waitress,
and maybe tax it like any other job.
its, the oldest profession, as long as no one is forced to do it, its ok.
Like drugs, making it illegal just provide,s extra money to criminals .
i think at the moment it,s legal if one person does, it.
i think some women do it because the money is good,
its better than working in retail.
Also they can set their own hour,s .
They pay no tax .

How could the demoralising act of having sex with strange men daily be better than working in retail?
Have you any idea what that can do to a persons mind, constantly providing sex outside of a loving relationship. It permanently rewires that persons mind and it has negative consequences that last a lifetime.

Btw you may think its highly paid..actually its not that highly paid when u add up the consequences and risks...a high class hooker might demand 500-1000 for an encounter..rents in prime spots means she would need to have sex with 2 strangers a week..
All a bit sick

Padre_Pio

marieholmfan wrote: »

Why are you so desperate to believe they do?

There's an AMA on boards from last year I think of a prostitute who was willingly doing the job part time I think.

She had her regulars and was v happy with the arrangement.

Ironicname

JustJoe7240 wrote:

But if a woman wants to offer her body "as a service", Is she not entitled to do so?

Apparently "her body her choice" only applies when it suits

dvdman1 wrote:

How could the demoralising act of having sex with strange men daily be better than working in retail? Have you any idea what that can do to a persons mind, constantly providing sex outside of a loving relationship. It permanently rewires that persons mind and it has negative consequences that last a lifetime.

That's bull****.

victor8600

Berserker wrote: »

I have sympathy for the former, less so for the later but I still don't think that justifies legalization.

I would not support the legalization of prostitution either, unless "sex workers" are actually formally taught to be professional applied sex therapists. It seems strange that sex is not being taught professionally. If you wanted to give your partner more pleasure, where would you go to get the information? Why not recognize that some people are more skilled and can share that knowledge for money?

On the other hand, I feel nothing but contempt for somebody who would treat another person as just a sexual object in exchange for money.

dvdman1

Ironicname wrote: »

Apparently "her body her choice" only applies when it suits



That's bull****.

Want to qualify that? Because all the long term studies of women in this situation shows that there mental health suffers.

Raconteuse

Love how one AMA is representative of all prostitutes.

bluewolf wrote: »

I am probably getting more conservative (or 2nd wave) as i get older, but women's bodies are not a service.

Men who 'can't get' a girlfriend are not entitled to one. we're not cars. we're not phones.
there is enough dehumanisation of women going on around the world.

But I'm not saying men who cannot get a girlfriend or sex are entitled to - just that buying sex is at least an option. Because there are those who choose that line of work.

Ironicname

dvdman1 wrote:

Want to qualify that? Because all the long term studies of women in this situation shows that there mental health suffers.

Sure.

Your assertion that having regular sex outside of a loving relationship permanently "rewires" the mind is bull****.

Wibbs

Depends on the sex worker too I would imagine. From the woman on the street of a night getting into passing cars, to the woman working from a licenced brothel, to the woman advertising herself seeking "arrangements" with usually older richer men who pay her in perks and cash and sometimes with no sex involved(which I could never understand). The latter seem to be doing it quite freely, so what about them?

What about male sex workers? There doesn't seem to be nearly the level of "Oh noes" and clutching at collective pearls about them. They're essentially invisible. Though that's hardly a shock.As JK noted earlier:

JupiterKid wrote: »

Prostitution, like drugs, should be legalized, taxed and regulated. This Victorian BS about “vice” and “morals” needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. These days it is dressed up as feminist disapproval of women being “exploited” by the “patriarchy.”

Yes, trafficking and coercion of women in the sex industry exists and there is also the issue of women exploited in the porn industry, and these problems need to be tacked effectively - but there are also many in these industries who are there by choice. The reality of the sex industry is much more complex and nuanced than high horse black and white ideological stances. It is also one of the biggest industries on the planet - worth tens of € billions in revenue per annum. So it is not going away. Making it illegal only keeps it underground and solves nothing. Nothing.

And as a gay man myself, what do the outraged moralists here have to say about gay and bisexual men willingly doing escort work or in the gay porn industry? Should they, too, be protected from themselves?

This tired narrative that all women in the sex industry are innocent victims of exploitation and abuse does nothing to help real victims of abuse, and only perpetuates the myth that women cannot willingly work in the sex industry of their own free will.

dotsman

bubblypop wrote: »

No little girl anywhere has ever dreamed of becoming a prostitute when they grow up.
If any man thinks that any woman has entered into prostitution because they actually want to do it, they are kidding themselves.
Yes many women do it, but don't fool yourselves into believing they actually want to do it.

No little girl ever dreamed of being a Data Analyst, Compliance Control Manager or an Accounting Technician or 95% of jobs out there. Should we ban these jobs as well? Perhaps, we should ban all jobs that little girls don't want to do (or unable to comprehend what these jobs entail)?

Now, if you were to describe prostitution in "kiddie" terms ("boys pay you a ton of money to give you hugs and kisses"), I'm sure quite a few girls would be interested.

victor8600

Spiderverse wrote: »

What does it mean to treat someone as a sexual object?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOG-kkDGaRc

Feisar

bluewolf wrote: »

I am probably getting more conservative (or 2nd wave) as i get older, but women's bodies are not a service.

Men who 'can't get' a girlfriend are not entitled to one. we're not cars. we're not phones.
there is enough dehumanisation of women going on around the world.

Sortof kinda agree/disagree with you. No, there is no entitlement to a phone. One buys one. You for example are not entitled to a plumber (no pun) however if you have a leaky tap you will probably hire one. Basically I don't agree with your argument.
However prostitution is akin to a ten year old miner in the Congo. As with pornstars it's rarely someone coming from a happy home with the white picket fence. It's not about the monetization of women but the exploitation of the vulnerable.

JupiterKid

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Urgh. Anytime anyone mentions paying for sex it's always followed with "oh but sex trafficking!" - look, that's a horrible thing. it shouldn't happen. It should be stamped out. But in the western world there are far more brassers who willingly choose to do so or cause they're junkies than because they are forced into it.

With the popularity of the internet the last 20 years many women have chosen to do so. Let's not beat around the bush. Many have deep emotional messed up issues or just straight up tarts. Realising they can make decent money by opening their legs.

The pure misogyny and bare faced sexism - and also total lack of respect for women who work in the sex industry - or who even perhaps - God forbid - might enjoy regular sex outside of a monogamous relationship is very strong here.

I suppose you would rather we all go back to the 1930s with its warped, repressive and hypocritical so-called "morality?"

dvdman1

Ironicname wrote: »

Sure.

Your assertion that having regular sex outside of a loving relationship permanently "rewires" the mind is bull****.

Go right ahead and tell me how its BS? The platforms yours my friend

Mad_maxx

Cyclepath wrote: »

Paying for sex will invariably be viewed through a Morality lens by most people. Many can't separate the intrinsic act from their own beliefs and attitudes to sex.

I'm pretty sure a lot of vegans might tell you that the act of purchasing meat and thereby sponsoring the death of an animal, is far more morally troublesome than two adults engaging in a consensual sexual arrangement for money. To clarify, I am not a vegan, nor am I opposed to paying money for sex.


I think that many groups have a hidden agenda in wanting to ban sex work. They know that framing the target as fighting sexual slavery gets you more support that simply trying to ban sex work. They have been so successful in their disinformation campaigns that most people now assume that most sex workers are trafficked. However, studies in Australia and New Zealand where they legalised sex work found no evidence of trafficking.

Here's a good article from the Washington Post that provides links to some interesting data, and the sort of tactics employed by religious and agenda backed movements.

The whole area is ridden with organised crime, even the women are not trafficked, they are paying someone protection money

Ironicname

dvdman1 wrote:

Go right ahead and tell me how its BS? The platforms yours my friend

Cool.

It's not true.

There you go.

B.A._Baracus

JupiterKid wrote: »

The pure misogyny and bare faced sexism - and also total lack of respect for women who work in the sex industry - or who even perhaps - God forbid - might enjoy regular sex outside of a monogamous relationship is very strong here.

I suppose you would rather we all go back to the 1930s with its warped, repressive and hypocritical so-called "morality?"

Not sure if you are taking me up wrong by mistake or on purpose.
I'm gonna assume on purpose. As I have already gotten back a few times in the thread trying to explain where I am coming from... I ain't gonna do it anymore.

Go think what you wanna think.

dvdman1

Ironicname wrote: »

Cool.

It's not true.

There you go.

Totally pathetic, so your logic is based on hunches and not anything evidence based.
Ignorance is bliss

Hahahahahaha lazy brain

Ironicname

dvdman1 wrote:

Totally pathetic, so your logic is based on hunches and not anything evidence based. Ignorance is bliss

Sorry chief, the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim.

You said that regular sex outside of a loving relationship rewires the brain.

What are you basing that on? What exactly does rewiring the brain mean?

It's bull****, pure and simple.

dvdman1

Ironicname wrote: »

Sorry chief, the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim.

You said that regular sex outside of a loving relationship rewires the brain.

What are you basing that on? What exactly does rewiring the brain mean?

It's bull****, pure and simple.

Having sex with strange men outside a relationship isn't healthy. When i say "rewired" this is when a person does something new over and over again, this creates new associations with the acts there performing daily. This has been well documented in reports and papers. Would you like some links or books you might like to read on the subject instead of lazy hunches?

JupiterKid

dvdman1 wrote: »

Having sex with strange men outside a relationship isn't healthy. When i say "rewired" this is when a person does something new over and over again, this creates new associations with the acts there performing daily. This has been well documented in reports and papers. Would you like some links or books you might like to read on the subject instead of lazy hunches?

So what do you think of gay men who have regular sex with different partners, even - believe it or not - in consensual open relationships with their long-term partners/husbands? Does it **** them up too?

Stop projecting your own morality onto others. What others do with respect to their sex lives in really none of your business.

Ironicname

dvdman1 wrote:

Having sex with strange men outside a relationship isn't healthy. When i say "rewired" this is when a person does something new over and over again, this creates new associations with the acts there performing daily. This has been well documented in reports and papers. Would you like some links or books you might like to read on the subject instead of lazy hunches?

Oh no thanks. It's not a lazy hunch. It's me not believing what you are saying.

So when you say rewired you actually mean that they become used to it?

How exactly is having safe sex with different people outside of a relationship "unhealthy"?

It seems that your interpretation that sex should only be performed as an act of love in a loving relationship is skewing your view.

Not everyone holds the same view as you and to insist that anyone who doesn't feel that way has had their brains rewired is a little odd.

Woke Hogan

Prostitution is like drinking alcohol or taking drugs: regardless of it's legality people will indulge in it.

In my view why it should be legalised, taxed and those proceeds used to support women's crisis centres.

Sarcozies

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Why is it seen as wrong?

Because the suppliers are mainly women and the customers mainly men. If this was switched and the majority of sex workers were men we wouldn't be having this conversation and the taboo of it would evaporate. Women, like children, are seen as victims who need protection. The lads heading off to fish for crabs in Alaska and down the mines for coal, who face much more adverse working conditions than legalised sex workers, do not illicit such a cry for protection because they are mostly men.

blanch152

dvdman1 wrote: »

Want to qualify that? Because all the long term studies of women in this situation shows that there mental health suffers.

There are also long term studies that claim that having an abortion leads to mental health suffering. Should we ban abortions on that basis?

The problem with these long-term studies (even if they are true, and I think a lot of them are dubious) is that they cannot control for other factors. In the case of prostitution, prostitutes are more likely to be prostitutes because of drug or drink addiction, which may be the real reason why they are prone to longer-term mental health suffering. In other words, it is the drugs and the drink that cause the mental health suffering, not the prostitution.

In the case of abortion (where the studies are even more dubious), women in unstable and/or abusive relationships or no relationships are more likely to have abortions. Again, rather than abortion being the "cause" of mental health suffering, it is more likely the unstable and abusive relationships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

"In a widely studied example of the statistical fallacy, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But later randomized controlled trials showed that use of HRT led to a small but statistically significant increase in the risk of CHD. Reanalysis of the data from the epidemiological studies showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from higher socioeconomic groups (ABC1), with better-than-average diet and exercise regimens. Thus the use of HRT and decreased incidence of coronary heart disease were coincident effects of a common cause (i.e., the benefits associated with a higher socioeconomic status), rather than one being a direct cause of the other, as had been supposed."

So, to sum up, I wouldn't accept the evidence so easily about poor mental health outcomes caused by prostitution.

Elmer Blooker

JustJoe7240 wrote: »

But if a woman wants to offer her body "as a service", Is she not entitled to do so?

... as long as that woman is not your sister or daughter!
I would agree with what Baracus said. The women involved in porn, which is of course prostitution, are far from the 'empowered' women we are lead to believe.

Many have deep emotional messed up issues