Yes. I find receiving sex for payment is something to look down upon. Im surprised anyone would not find it something to look down on. And of course the fact many of those workers arent there by choice....geez is this really even a question....defense force for everything i guess
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Would you look down someone that frequents sex workers?
- Thread starter Slayven
- Start date
- Status
But modern notions of consent make it kind of tricky to say if prostitutes are choosing prostitution for themselves. Suppose a woman has herself a nice job - philosophy professor, say - at the only university in town, and for various reasons isn't really capable of moving somewhere else (taking care of elderly parents, maybe, or just has deep roots in the area and is unwilling to leave). If the dean approaches her, and makes her continued employment contingent on her having sex with him, she might well choose to go along with that. But we think that she is coerced; that sex wasn't really consensual.
The problem for prostitution is that prostitution is very rarely not the best-paying option available to the women who choose to do it. If a philosophy professor is coerced because refusing the dean's advances means having to quit and take a large pay cut working as a lecturer at the community college, then surely almost every prostitute is likewise coerced, including the ones that make the most money at it, because if they stop having sex they lose a whole lot of income.
Now, I don't think that's true for all prostitutes. I know one, at least, who really does seem to view the whole thing in purely transactional terms. Probably prostitutes are more likely to be truly consenting to sex as their ability to earn a living wage doing something else increases. But given the culture we have, it seems likely to me that many prostitutes would rather be doing something else, and in such a way that it feels to them that they're being coerced by the structure of society into having sex. At the least I imagine that many start out this way.
So, to the topic, I would judge men who exploit those prostitutes who seem likely to be in sex work because they need a job and that's what was available. I'm much more sanguine about a john going to a university student who's just looking for some pocket money.
This is in no way shape or form a valid comparison. Its so flimsy that it could be used in any job situation.
Devolution
Member
I had sex with Timedog the other night after he bought me dinner. Explain to me how this isn't prostitution.
Femmeworth
Banned
Fair enough, when you put it like that I can't disagree.
WHY is sex in your view particularly "special" that it should be singled out in this way? Asserting that it is would seem to beg the question.
It seems to me that the mysticism around sex has been a HUGE problem in western society, particularly the US leading to shaming, fear mongering, and the spread of misinformation on a variety of topics. Sex is an intimate act that is special for the participants but it is no more special beyond that then anything else.
I would even argue its only as special as the people doing it make it. I've had sex with my girlfriend, that while still great, is just sex and is more of taking care of a innate need. We've had it other nights that were definitely special. IF I were to pay for sex I'd expect the former as it only gets special with someone you care about, however thats just me. I know not everyone is the same in that regard. I guess you can call it the difference between sex and lovemaking.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by "any job situation"? In what sense do you think the comparison is used?
FWIW, I do think that a boss making a subordinate's continued employment contingent on the subordinate agreeing to have sex with someone is wrong in almost every job situation. So does almost everyone else.
You said a prostitute who willingly does it is still being coerced by the amount of money they are making due to it. Which the same could be said for any job someone works at a job that is weary of moving on. Their are a ton of people who don't like their current jobs, but do so because of the money they make at it. Odds are thats why they chose the career. Comparing it directly to someone being exploited with sex in order to keep their job is a rather loose connection. One is the choice of the individual to do what they do for money. The other is One person trying to exploit someone in a bad position for sex.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
I got paid sometimes to draw things I dislike. But I like money.
Am I prostituting my services?
Am I prostituting my services?
Devolution
Member
If you ever had sex with anyone you're trading something. Access granted to your genitals is fine via dinner, drinks at a bar, a relationship but money? How dare you.
But I wasn't comparing any other kind of coercion to sexual coercion. I brought up sexual harassment in the workplace (leading to rape, in my example), then I talked about prostitution, and then I pointed out that what's often going on in the case of prostitution is exactly what's problematic about office sexual harassment - someone is having sex because they need the money, even though they might really not want to.
Yes, lots of people are coerced into doing jobs they'd rather not do. But we think that sexual coercion is more problematic than being coerced into preparing a TPS report. This isn't a controversial point.
Legalizing it is the only way to go. It will never go away (and why should we want that). Make it organized, have it be taxed and with regular health checks. That way you get rid of the pimps, the diseases and unhealthy/unsafe aspects.
Australia & New Zealand got it all figured out (and Netherlands too I assume).
"to work you must be over 18 and the choice
to practicing sex work must be yours"
"It is illegal for anyone to force you or bully
you into practicing sex work"
"A brothel must provide you with free condoms and
lubrication, clean showers and baths, a continuous
supply of hot and cold water and clean linen"
"In accordance with the Prostitution Control
Regulations (1994) you must have swabs taken every
month for Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea and Trichomoniasis
and blood tests every three months for Syphilis and HIV. Each month the clinician will also examine your genital area for the presence of herpes and warts.
Depending on your gender, the specimens we require
can include a urine test and/or swabs from your throat,
vagina, cervix and anus."
Australian Sex Workers Medical Faq sheet: http://www.mshc.org.au/dnn/Portals/_default/uploads/fact_sheets/sex_workers_a4.pdf
Australia & New Zealand got it all figured out (and Netherlands too I assume).
"to work you must be over 18 and the choice
to practicing sex work must be yours"
"It is illegal for anyone to force you or bully
you into practicing sex work"
"A brothel must provide you with free condoms and
lubrication, clean showers and baths, a continuous
supply of hot and cold water and clean linen"
"In accordance with the Prostitution Control
Regulations (1994) you must have swabs taken every
month for Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea and Trichomoniasis
and blood tests every three months for Syphilis and HIV. Each month the clinician will also examine your genital area for the presence of herpes and warts.
Depending on your gender, the specimens we require
can include a urine test and/or swabs from your throat,
vagina, cervix and anus."
Australian Sex Workers Medical Faq sheet: http://www.mshc.org.au/dnn/Portals/_default/uploads/fact_sheets/sex_workers_a4.pdf
Thank you for your wonderful contribution to the thread.
That's not true at all. There are women (and men) who choose, 100% voluntarily, to work in the sex industry. A broad generalization.
Another broad generalization. You seem to be making a lot of these, and I'm not sure that it's good for the conversation. Not all johns are inherently evil, not by a long shot.
This is simply not true. It turns sex, a physical act, into a service. It is no different than any other service industry in that regard.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
spacerumsfield
Banned
If there's a wind, the idealist will try to change the weather while the realist will simply adjust her sails (heavily modified William Arthur Ward quote). It's pretty clear which type of person you're arguing with here.
scar tissue
Banned
I actually know that they did it out of desperation, because they told me.
Guy A (29 y/o) had a one year relationship without sex - his first one. After he ended the relationship, he hired an escort.
Guy B (25 y/o) had never even kissed a girl, so he too chose an escort.
They're both great guys, but they just can't seem to catch a break concerning girls.
I don't really pity them too much tho, because I'm essentially in the same situation, just a few years younger.
I completely agree with your stance on the ethics of prostitution and the role it ought to play in society. However, I don't think this comparison flies. Few people literally trade access to their genitals with people they would not otherwise choose as sex partners just to earn dinner/drinks/emotional support. Rather, they have sex with people who they find attractive; and sometimes prospective mates successfully increase their level of attractiveness through the giving of gifts or services. This is very different to sex as a transaction which occurs solely for financial gain.
But yes, legalize prostitution and let's get over this ridiculous cultural hang-up about a basic human need; not to mention the basic human right for people to do what they wish with their own bodies.
Glad you're not jumping to conclusions. I apologize if I came across as confrontational, that was not the intent.
And yeah, it's best not to judge. If they need an escort to boost their confidence, more power to them. It's honestly not a bad way to pick up a few tricks - most are professionals, after all.
Head of Vengarl
Banned
I know several Marines who would talk about having sex with prostitutes. I remember thinking it was kind of slimy but I never looked down on them for it.
Devolution
Member
I seem to recall some line about gold diggers though. Plus I do not understand how we can say pornography is okay. Those people don't have an interest in those they are fucking. How is pornography legal but prostitution is not?
I'm mexican so, here in Mexico it's not so rare, is have a couple of friends who pay for sex regularly, i don't look down on them if they have the money, it is easier and maybe cheaper than taking a girl on a date for a couple of times and you're still not guaranteed to get any lol.
Only because sex carries so much cultural baggage. A man who is punched in the face by a stranger in a bar because he thought he was checking out his girlfriend is the victim of a traumatic physical assault which is rightfully illegal; but if that same man was to work as a professional boxer in order to pay the bills when he might rather not, we wouldn't view his situation as remotely comparable.
The same holds true for sex. It means different things to different people at different times. Rape, sexual blackmail, or sexual coercion is universally traumatic, but choosing to have sex for money only carries similar weight due to the stigma placed on those who prostitute themselves by the rest of society. If we treated sex workers like massage therapists or McDonalds employees the stigma would evolve into something utterly different. Prostitution might always be seen as an unfortunate job, and it will certainly always be a clinically intimate job; but prostitutes would no longer be treated like second class citizens with no legal protection from their employers or clients. There is no reason to force them to exist outside society aside from a misguided desire to legislate personal morality.
Those would be arguments I agree with. Pornography is nothing more than legalized prostitution. But most women who have sex with a guy after he buys her dinner are not gold diggers, and I think it's important to make that distinction. A date is only comparable to prostitution if one participant agrees to it solely in order to exchange sex for a free meal. The straight up Anna Nicole Smiths of the world are a different matter.
Devolution
Member
Most women aren't this is true but the way a bunch of prostitutes (or should I say mistresses?) skirt the line is basically having their johns pay for rent, groceries, clothes, etc.
You said
and I'm arguing that this simply isn't true. I don't dispute the fact that some people have sex with other people purely for financial gain in what are ostensibly perceived as socially accepted circumstances - these people are essentially prostitutes. But the transaction you describe isn't a universal that can be applied to all people who have sex. Most of the time, sex is a mutually pleasurable experience between two people who are sexually attracted to each other, and under these circumstances it's more like playing a video game together on the couch than exchanging a service for a quantifiable reward.
Your statement suggests "anyone who has sex is exchanging something for something, so those who have sex but demonize prostitution are hypocritical" and I'd say this is just as false as it would be for me to say "girls should let me give them $100 for a BJ; it's pretty much the same thing as a game of Street Fighter."
Devolution
Member
That's just how I view it. You give something away (as well as receive it) when sex happens regardless of who it's with. It's the weight we've put on such a thing. It doesn't have to be a direct exchange of goods which is what I should have explained rather than just talking about when it is. It's more evident when you withhold it in a relationship than doing it though.
OttomanScribe
Member
In order for that to be a comparison, you would have to be engaged in an explicit contract where you exchanged dinner for sex.
I assume that is not the case?
In a general sense I believe that most societies view this to be self evident. Sex is not the same thing as scratching one's nose or manual labour. This is of course a social construct, but that being the case does not make it any less real. Sex is something imbued with significance, individually, socially, politically, so it is special because of that significance.
Hence the distinction in the law, as previously argued, and not yet rebuffed, between rape and assault. Do you view this distinction as this same kind of illogical making of sex 'special'.
I don't know that the answer to this apparent mysticism is the turning of sex into a market commodity. I don't think that the kind of shame associated with sex in Christendom has anything in particular to do with the discussion at hand.
Not sure how to respond with this but to suggest you re-read what I said.
It is right there, staring you in the face.
Who mentioned them being inherently evil? I certainly didn't. I said that in my experience, and in my research, a large amount of them... in fact, in my experience anyway, without exception, were mysogynists. Like the dog comment made somewhere earlier.
I didn't say that there are those who aren't mysogynysts.. just that from what I understand I can only assume that such men are in the minority.
That is my point. It becomes nothing more than any other service industry.
I ask that same question, which people seem unable to answer, are those who are for the legalisation of prostitution also for the reclassification of rape as assault or armed robbery?
And you say I have an unhealthy attitude towards sex...
Sometimes I wish I had the liberty to replace cogent argument with personal jabs. Would make life much easier.
You're contradicting yourself. I suggest you re-read what you said.
????
You can't make a blanket statement about "women in general" based solely off of your anecdotal evidence. Well, you can, but it would likely be incorrect. If you start showing me some studies, then we can talk.
I simply don't understand why you would reclassify an entire crime simply because some people happen to do legitimate business in sex. You can't redefine rape because a small subset of the population work in sex. You're implying that a sex worker could never be raped? What if he or she were on their way home after work hours? Would it not be rape simply because they are a sex worker? You seem to be rather narrow-minded in your approach.
I touched on this eight posts up, but no, I don't feel rape should be reclassified as armed robbery. I'm not sure why you feel that if society permits people to commodify sex that it must also blind itself to the distinction between battery and sexual assault. Allowing some people to choose to sell sex doesn't make rape any less traumatic. Rape is far more intimate and far more egregious than battery, and has absolutely nothing to do with granting consenting adults the freedom to do what they want with their own bodies in exchange for money.
Yes, but. Sex does carry a lot of cultural baggage, and this baggage gets internalized. There's a reason that sexual coercion is so traumatic, even if that reason isn't some culturally-independent thing.
It's awfully speculative to say that if we treated prostitutes like fry cooks these issues would go away. If individual (mostly) women are still likely to see sex in general as somehow special, in a way that is totally unlike the way anyone sees cooking french fries, then there's a problem if any of these women feel forced into sex work in order to pay the bills. You need something a whole lot stronger than "respect for prostitution as a profession" here. You need "see sex in general as no more significant a thing than cooking french fries". Even if one's goal is a society where attractive women are laughed out of welfare offices because clearly there are respectable jobs available for them, that can only be acceptable if the women in question don't attach particular significance to sex such that they, as individuals, don't have strong objections to doing that sort of work.
That said, I'm on the pro-legalization side here. My worry is that the victimization of sex workers goes deeper than that.
Edit: Let me put it this way - Being a movie star is a very respectable job. They're in no way treated as second-class citizens. But even if society loves movie stars, and even if a particular person has nothing but respect for movie stars, it might still be a very bad thing if that person had no real choice but to be a movie star. Perhaps they're just very private, or are terrified of audiences. Being a movie star might be a miserable and traumatic experience for them. Even if prostitution is normalized, it seems likely to me that a great many people will still have very strong hang-ups about engaging in it themselves such that telling people that if they need money they should just sell their bodies is a whole lot more problematic than telling people to go apply to work at McDonalds, and to the extent that society forces some number of otherwise representative poor (mostly) women into it, society's doing something wrong (and to a much greater extent than if society were forcing poor people to go work in fast food).
OttomanScribe
Member
I'm not contradicting myself, you are confusing what I said. I said that some women may view sex work in a particular way, but the generality and the majority of sex work involves coercion.
I didn't make a blanket statement about men in general though, so that is a false comparison. I talked about a general experience of johns specifically. I don't have any studies, but in this case, I don't feel that it is a bizarre assertion.
It isn't something I am asking to do, it is a logical conclusion of what is being asserted here.
Of course not. What people here are arguing is that sex is just like any other kind of work, because sex has no special status, or should have no special status in the eyes of the law.
Rape is sex attained through coercion, yet it has special status under the law. If they are arguing that sex is just like anything else, then the logical thing is that they should argue that rape is not special or extraordinary in any way, it is merely assault, or theft, or a combination of both.
It isn't that subtle a point.
In what sense am I narrow minded? I am of course not arguing that rape SHOULD be reclassified, merely pointing out the logical conclusion of what people are arguing here.
All fair points. But stripping/lap dancing/porn-starring have all been legal for some time, and attractive men and women aren't laughed out of the welfare office and pointed at the nearst sleazy guy with a camcorder. I think we need to drop some unpleasant cultural prejudices, and that by legally supporting sex workers we not only regulate a horrifically exploitative underground industry, but we lubricate a shift in attitudes towards the personal decisions other people make for themselves about sex. Most people won't turn to prostitution were it legalized any more than they turn to stripping now - it's not right for them; it won't work for them, and no one expects anyone else to choose it. Legalization is about respecting and protecting those who are already doing it, whatever their current reasons. The cultural aspect is icing on the cake, and legalization attacks the problem from all sides: both the attitudes that marginalize and shame sex workers, and the conditions they are forced to accept due to the legal status of their profession.
Why must sex lose it's 'special' status in order to be commodified? No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Let people do what they want with their bodies, and give sex workers the same rights and legal protections as anyone else. There's no logical reason why this must lead to a complete philosophical overhaul. It's just a recognition that sex isn't scared to everybody; as already evidenced by the myriad examples of may-as-well-be-prostitution that are woven into the fabric of society. Sex is already a commodity. Making porn has been legal for decades, and yet rape somehow managed to not magically transform into your combination of assault and theft in a puff of logic.
I wouldn't look down on anyone who had sex with a prostitute. I did it. I never paid, though, as she was my girlfriend. The fucked up thing is, I didn't even know she was an escort until a couple months into the relationship! Anyway, not the point. They're people like everyone else, and if they want to take money in exchange for access to their genitals, and vast experience in the field of coitus, the more power to them, and to the men who want to pay.
spacerumsfield
Banned
I don't see why you aren't free to; I certainly wouldn't mind.
Anyway, I wouldn't say that your insisting that it isn't optimal to turn sex into a market commodity when as a matter of empirical fact it already is as such is "cogent" at all; in fact, it reinforces the point of my quote and demonstrates its relevance.
OttomanScribe
Member
Because the logic that they use: that sex is just like any other action. It is making sex something to be traded.
What makes rape more intimate and more serious than battery? The value attached to it by society surely? What is to stop someone saying that a person who views sex as merely something to be bought and sold, thus removes that value and therefore will not be effected in the same way?
People cannot simply do what they like with their bodies, some things are deemed harmful by first society, and then the state, and then regulated or made illegal. In this case, many societies deem the harm to society of legalising sex work as more important than the impact on personal freedom it has.
There are many things that are controlled by the market that should not be. That other things are bought and sold does not immediately mean that they should be. I don't support the legality of porn either, though I imagine that is an even more controversial position here.
I would.
Child pornography is already a market commodity, it is going to be around anyway, might as well make it taxable.
You can call me an idealist but I am very much aware of the realities of the sex trade, it is this that makes me hold this position. Simply because something occurs, does not equate to it being positive. What is occurring here is an appraisal of possible outcomes. Some things exist already, for example murder, but that does not mean that people inclined towards murder should be given axes and given a legal framework where their actions become acceptable.
The commodification of women's bodies is an unfortunate reality, and it isn't confined to the trade in sex. That it is a reality does not mean it is something that people should view as something that should not be combated. The discussion here is about whether or not actions taken to stop it occurring will be productive or not.
Hands up which women here would be comfortable dating a man who had made a habit of frequenting sex workers. Hands up how many men would date a woman who is/was a sex worker in the past.
Mysterious Stranger
Member
I dunno how you find one in the suburbs? Is there a phonebook?
Mysterious Stranger
Member
You can't blame them for getting some experience points.
But it would make too much sense to go after the pimps than to just throw the same woman in jail over and over again
It depends as there are a lot of factors involved:
- Are the professionals working in prostitution by choice/independent/whatever or street-picked pimped sex slaves?
- Does the customer in question have any disability that might make it difficult to find partners in an easy way?
- Is safe sex agreed between both parts?
In any case, regulation and legalization is needed. Anything else is like trying to hide the dirt under the carpet.
- Are the professionals working in prostitution by choice/independent/whatever or street-picked pimped sex slaves?
- Does the customer in question have any disability that might make it difficult to find partners in an easy way?
- Is safe sex agreed between both parts?
In any case, regulation and legalization is needed. Anything else is like trying to hide the dirt under the carpet.
Rape is more serious than battery because the physical and emotional experience of being sexually assaulted is qualitatively different. Allowing people to make porn or marry octogenarians for their money has not changed this; neither would legalizing prostitution.
The law, and the lived experiences of real people. Porn stars and gold diggers who are raped are no less traumatized than any one else. Some people believe women who dress provocatively can't get raped because they present themselves as sexually available, but that doesn't mean the legal system has to shrug its shoulders and agree.
Indeed, and it is this position which I and many others are arguing against. If woman A is legally permitted to have sex with man B in exchange for cash, precisely who is harmed by this transaction? Do you think the men and women who work in the porn industry would be better off if that industry was driven underground? Would they be more or less easily exploited? Would society be better or worse?
The difference is that child pornography is always a horrific act of exploitation. Sex work can be a clear-minded choice made by consenting adults. Giving those adults more legal protection and regulating their business is a more effective way to quash the exploitation that currently festers in the industry.
Not sure why this is relevant, but of course I'd date a woman who used to be a sex worker if I liked her and found her attractive. That said, here's what you were fishing for: I probably wouldn't date a woman who is a sex worker because it would creep me out. I wouldn't date a woman who worked for a cigarette company for the same reason, or a woman who worked for PETA, or a woman who worked for a religious organization. But I don't want to ban cigarettes or PETA or organized religion. This is exactly the point: the subjective ethics and tastes of individuals should not infringe upon the rights of other consenting adults merely because they consider their actions distasteful.
That argument showcases a fundamental failure in ones use of the logical process. Logic doesn't stop.
Fantasy feeds into itself and serves only to amplify desire to act not reduce it. The person seeking out girls who "look" underage is at the core not actually interested in them. They're using them as a means to fulfill the fantasy of sex with someone who is actually underage. Because they know the truth of the girls age their actions never amount to fulfillment which only furthers the desire.
SilentProtagonist
Member
That depends on if you had sex with him because he bought you dinner or because, you know, you just wanted to either way.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
That's completely made up. And it's not true! There is a difference between fantasy and acting out, and you can't get used to fantasy to such a degree that you act out as a result or whatever your thinking is.
It's really way more complex than that. Taboo fantasies, and inching close to seemingly realizing them, that in itself is a normal game we all play. Of course, the fantasy of having sex with a kid is abnorm, but most people have some kind of taboo fantasy they don't specifically mention, or even force themselves to not think about them; not even necessarily of a sexual nature. So that part is human in and of itself.
Specifically forcing little children to do sexual acts however is not the logical next step. That's like saying you'd actually want to try fighting a bear after watching movies of people fighting bears over and over. You wouldn't be able to commit because of fear, no matter how much you wanted to do it.
The same fear mechanism stops people fantasizing about fucking kids from actually doing it. And the same fear stops YOU from trying to score the little 16yo Lolitas you encounter everywhere. The degree of fear necessary to stop you most likely differs, of course. You just need the baseline fear of hurting a young person, which is like part of the operating system of all of us. Abnorm would be fearing being discovered when doing it.
And prostitution doesn't factor into it at all anyway. Fucking ridiculous discussing paedophilia in that context. But the point the poster you quoted referred to still stands regardless.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
That quote is interesting. If legalizing prostitution would actually increase human trafficking, implying that we should keep the market small by imposing some form of legal restriction, then maybe the correct approach is to depenalize selling sex services, but still categorize the purchase of sex services and pimping as crimes. It's the same logic behind depenalizing consumption of marijuana but not production/distribution; depenalizing giving bribes but not receiving them; etc.
- Status