An example of why I am against prostitution

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, they're not.

I'm not talking about you, personally, Frank. I still think you're a perfectly decent human being. If you one day decide to hire a prostitute, I wish you the very best of luck. Hell, I can even recommend you a fantastic one who is one of the nicest, smartest, funniest, sexiest people you'll ever know! I just don't think you'll find it's quite like you imagine it to be. She's one of the most compassionate, down to earth people I've ever met, but after she takes your money, she's basically gonna be done with you, because she is not interested in having any kind of relationship with any of her johns.

If you were her friend, though, she'd probably bang you for free and still be your friend. She's good like that.

I already know that sex is not like how you imagine it to be. I'm not really a virgin. From my experience with it, it's a letdown and a waste of time (for me, anyway; the other person got what they wanted).

But I still do find what you're saying to be insulting and shaming.

 

[Revoltingest]

If there were one area I would expect corruption to occur from a government operated entity is a sex-trade situation.
Here's some of the governments who've stated that their countries policies towards legalized prostitution have failed to meet their objectives.
http://www.equalitynow.org/sites/de...g_Prostitution_Protect_Women_and_Girls_EN.pdf

Your linked article looks pretty inconclusive about deleterious effects of legalization.
It makes negative sounding statements about rather innocuous claims.
But still, government regulation is appropriate for prostitution, despite it's faults.
I'd expect less corruption & other malfeasance in a legal industry than a criminalized oone.
Let's just ensure that Bill Clinton & Eliot Spitzer seek solace rather than employment there.

 

[Alceste]

If there were one area I would expect corruption to occur from a government operated entity is a sex-trade situation.

Here's some of the governments who've stated that their countries policies towards legalized prostitution have failed to meet their objectives.

http://www.equalitynow.org/sites/de...g_Prostitution_Protect_Women_and_Girls_EN.pdf

I heard a radio interview with the oldest prostitutes in the Netherlands (twins, 70 years old). They were saying prostitution has changed for the worse there in the past few decades, mostly due to an influx of Eatern European prostitutes from trafficking rings with criminal connections. They feel it's gotten a lot darker and more violent and dangerous than it used to be. They were free agents, operating independently, while the newcomers are under the control of criminals.

Which just goes to show you that the exploiting doucheweasels of the world don't really care whether or not it's legal. They only care if they can make money off it.

OTOH, these ladies might just have been a couple of old racists. Complaining about Eastern European immigrants "stealing our jobs" is the national sport in pretty much every EU country I've been to.

 

[Alceste]

I already know that sex is not like how you imagine it to be. I'm not really a virgin. From my experience with it, it's a letdown and a waste of time (for me, anyway; the other person got what they wanted).

But I still do find what you're saying to be insulting and shaming.

No, you feel insulted and ashamed. I am sincerely sorry to hear that you feel that way, but don't agree that it's my fault or my responsibility. I am simply telling you what the relationship between a prostitute and a john is typically like, based on what the available research tells us and the reports of my prostitute friend. I've repeated over and over again that I'm not making value judgments. I'm not sure what else I can do for you. Here, have some flowers. :foryou:

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, you feel insulted and ashamed. I am sincerely sorry to hear that you feel that way, but don't agree that it's my fault or my responsibility. I am simply telling you what the relationship between a prostitute and a john is typically like, based on what the available research tells us and the reports of my prostitute friend. I've repeated over and over again that I'm not making value judgments. I'm not sure what else I can do for you. Here, have some flowers. :foryou:

People have pointed out why the things you've been saying about those who hire sex workers are insulting and shaming. But I don't really care anymore about it. Whatever.

 

[Alceste]

People have pointed out why the things you've been saying about those who hire sex workers are insulting and shaming. But I don't really care anymore about it. Whatever.

I'm glad you don't care. You shouldn't care. I'm expressing a personal opinion on the internet. Anybody who cares about that sort of thing is in for a rough time.

 

[Badran]

Despite my clever use of biased rhetoric, I genuinely don't pass judgment. I don't know whether they're terrible, abusive jerks or delicate, wounded birds who deserve my utmost compassion.

It's good that at least the 'rapist' or sexual abusive aspect is no longer proposed as necessary, even though i don't see why it would take so long for such a thing to be acknowledged.

My point is that even the most gentlemanly John in the world is penetrating somebody who is extremely likely to be going through that the whole time, and to him this is a far less pressing consideration than his own sexual or emotional gratification.

It doesn't remain extremely likely if someone goes through some careful measures to reduce that likability.

I understand your point about the hypothetical ideal scenario, but I don't think this debate becomes any more enlightening by orienting our exploration of the issues around some hypothetical happy hooker, or some perfectly respectful john, or around the possibility that they might find each other in this crazy world.

You're downplaying the point using some careful wording to make it sound fantastical when you know that it's not proposed as any where near as such, but once more for who knows what time, addressing these less likely scenarios was raised specifically in response to a generalized judgment, and so it is exactly the kind of the thing that is needed to judge whether or not such a generalized judgment is fair or holds any merit. Something was proposed to be the case all of the time instead of most of the time, and your posts further supported that. So addressing possible exceptions is exactly what is done to address such generalizations.

For what it's worth, I do acknowledge the possibility that such a scenario might exist somewhere in the real world, but for the purpose of discussion I think it's necessary to conceptualize what would be a more typical scenario, based on the evidence we have to work with.

That was never questioned, and was in fact emphasized in almost every post addressing these less common proposed scenarios.

I keep bringing up entitlement because it is the crucial distinction between those who frequent prostitutes and those who don't. There is no other distinction.

There are plenty of other possible distinctions.

I don't prefer to pay for intimacy or for sex, i prefer to get them out of spontaneous and more genuine scenarios, but that's not necessarily a moral or an ethical choice in at least one regard which could account for many people's choice in the matter. Meaning, i could prefer it in this regard because i simply like it better, because it strokes my ego the right way, because buying the services of prostitutes would be bad for me there. It would make me feel pathetic. That's for one example.

Another distinction is that i don't warm up to people easily. I couldn't have sex with someone i just met like that, it would feel uncomfortable to me almost all of the time. So that's another problem that would make hiring a prostitute unpreferable.

There is actually ethical considerations, which people might disagree about.

We all feel lonely, horny and unfulfilled sometimes. Often desperately so.

Some feel that way all the time. We're not just all similar in this regard and the one distinguishing factor is whether or not we feel 'entitled'. There are a variety of circumstances people live through in this regard which can differ greatly and it naturally affects their decisions in regards to what they would and would not do.

 

[Alceste]

It's good that at least the 'rapist' or sexual abusive aspect is no longer proposed as necessary, even though i don't see why it would take so long for such a thing to be acknowledged.

That was not my proposed word. That was horrorble. I don't believe that consensual sex between adults is rape, but I DO believe it can be sexually abusive. I think prostitution almost always falls into the latter category, despite the consent, for the reasons I've mentioned.

It doesn't remain extremely likely if someone goes through some careful measures to reduce that likability.

(likelihood, not likability - hope you appreciate the tip from one second language speaker to another ).

But yes, it remains extremely likely because a prostitute - however expensive and classy she is - will almost always emotionally dissociate during the act to get the job done. Dissociation is psychologically a very unhealthy thing to do. Again, picture yourself being sodomized by Donald Trump for money - however much money you think makes that transaction worthwhile. Really try to imagine how you will feel during the sexual act. Physically and emotionally. Unpleasant? Absolutely. But if you want the money enough, you will suck it up and take it. The necessity for psychological dissociation to get through the bargain is the reason that most prostitutes are victims of childhood abuse. Abuse teaches victims to exit their body in uncomfortable situations and observe, like a spectator, until it's all over. Prostitutes are capitalizing on that special skill.

You're downplaying the point using some careful wording to make it sound fantastical when you know that it's not proposed as any where near as such, but once more for who knows what time, addressing these less likely scenarios was raised specifically in response to a generalized judgment, and so it is exactly the kind of the thing that is needed to judge whether or not such a generalized judgment is fair or holds any merit. Something was proposed to be the case all of the time instead of most of the time, and your posts further supported that. So addressing possible exceptions is exactly what is done to address such generalizations.

That was never questioned, and was in fact emphasized in almost every post addressing these less common proposed scenarios.



There are plenty of other possible distinctions.

I don't prefer to pay for intimacy or for sex, i prefer to get them out of spontaneous and more genuine scenarios, but that's not necessarily a moral or an ethical choice in at least one regard which could account for many people's choice in the matter. Meaning, i could prefer it in this regard because i simply like it better, because it strokes my ego the right way, because buying the services of prostitutes would be bad for me there. It would make me feel pathetic. That's for one example.

Another distinction is that i don't warm up to people easily. I couldn't have sex with someone i just met like that, it would feel uncomfortable to me almost all of the time. So that's another problem that would make hiring a prostitute unpreferable.

There is actually ethical considerations, which people might disagree about.



Some feel that way all the time. We're not just all similar in this regard and the one distinguishing factor is whether or not we feel 'entitled'. There are a variety of circumstances people live through in this regard which can differ greatly and it naturally affects their decisions in regards to what they would and would not do.

I hate the chopping block, to be honest. It usually serves as a great excuse to challenge individual bits and pieces but miss the overall idea being communicated and it creates a fractal universe of pointless sub-debates. So I'm going to reassemble your ideas into one idea and respond to that.

Here's the bit that I think is most on topic:

"I don't prefer to pay for intimacy or for sex, i prefer to get them out of spontaneous and more genuine scenarios, but that's not necessarily a moral or an ethical choice in at least one regard which could account for many people's choice in the matter. Meaning, i could prefer it in this regard because i simply like it better, because it strokes my ego the right way, because buying the services of prostitutes would be bad for me there. It would make me feel pathetic. That's for one example.

Another distinction is that i don't warm up to people easily. I couldn't have sex with someone i just met like that, it would feel uncomfortable to me almost all of the time. So that's another problem that would make hiring a prostitute unpreferable.

There is actually ethical considerations, which people might disagree about. "

There's a heck of a lot in there about your personal preferences for how to obtain sex with a woman, all the methods someone might use and the reasons they might desire the sex, but not for one moment did you consider the possibility of just going without. It's a choice between voluntary couplings and hiring a woman to pretend she is happy to have sex with you.

That's what entitlement is. "I want = I deserve." A non-entitled attitude looks more like this: "Sometimes we don't get what we want, and that's OK".

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Which is why I always think that, if it is legalized some day, someone needs a legit permit to prove consent. It might really narrow down what you mentioned here.

 

[Alceste]

Which is why I always think that, if it is legalized some day, someone needs a legit permit to prove consent. It might really narrow down what you mentioned here.

I don't think that would do it. If she's being coerced to have sex with strangers for money, she can certainly be coerced to apply for a permit. The girls who are kidnapped and forced into prostitution are tortured and repeatedly raped by their abductors for months on end to make them compliant before they're even shipped to a brothel. If you can make a woman suck a dick out of fear of reprisal, you can certainly make her sign a form and tell the authorities she's acting completely of her own volition.

If she's not being coerced by traffickers, she can apply for the prostitution permit and not feel like she's doing anything that is psychologically unhealthy for her, but when do any of us ever feel like our own self destructive behaviors are a real problem? Prostitutes who realize their behavior is self destructive and want to live in a way that is more conducive to their psychological health are called EX prostitutes.

 

[dust1n]

Your linked article looks pretty inconclusive about deleterious effects of legalization.
It makes negative sounding statements about rather innocuous claims.
But still, government regulation is appropriate for prostitution, despite it's faults.
I'd expect less corruption & other malfeasance in a legal industry than a criminalized oone.
Let's just ensure that Bill Clinton & Eliot Spitzer seek solace rather than employment there.

Alright... I'd expect a general inflammation and continuation of this:

Legal brothels linked to international sex trafficking rings

LEGAL brothels in NSW and Victoria are operating unchecked despite police investigations implicating them in human trafficking, sex slavery and organised crime.

Two federal police investigations, Operations Elixation and Raspberry, have identified at least two Sydney brothels and three Melbourne ones linked to an international human trafficking and sex slavery ring. The syndicate allegedly convinces Asian women to come to Australia to study. They are then forced to work as sex slaves in brothels.

But the state and local authorities responsible for approving legal brothels have taken no action, despite court documents in August detailing federal police allegations of the brothels' - or their managers' - involvement in organised crime.

A joint investigation by the Herald and the ABC program Four Corners can reveal that the brothels include the Five Star in Woolloomooloo, which was approved by the City of Sydney, and the Candy Club in Melbourne, licensed by the Victorian government.
A syndicate member, De Jun Zheng, was also involved in the killing in 2009 of a Melbourne man, Abraham Papo, outside a brothel linked to sex trafficking.

Evidence suggests Papo was killed trying to help a Korean prostitute he thought was being harmed or held against her will by the syndicate in Sydney. Papo's parents, Deanna and Marco, are calling on state and federal authorities to crack down on brothels linked to sex trafficking.

In addition to the legal parlours identified in federal police operations, the Herald can reveal other legal brothels operating unchecked despite alleged links to organised crime. They are:

Nadira in inner-city Sydney, which specialises in Korean prostitutes. It is closely linked to the Comanchero outlaw motorcycle club and senior Asian organised crime figures;

Regarding House, in Heidelberg, Melbourne, where a sex slave allegedly worked in 2009. The owner of the premises is linked to a Chinese syndicate that runs illegal brothels;

39 Tope Street in South Melbourne, from which authorities removed two women in late 2008 due to sex slavery allegations which the licensee later denied;

Senior police sources said the links between organised crime or sex trafficking syndicates and legal brothels highlighted the need for stronger state regulation, better information-sharing between police and regulators - including across
state borders - and discussion of the need for uniform prostitution laws in Australia.

An federal police spokesman told the Herald the agency "continually explores ways to increase the sharing of information and collaboration" in the illegal sex industry.

Since 2003, the federal police's human trafficking teams have undertaken more than 308 investigations and assessments of trafficking allegations, identifying 181 victims, including 147 women forced to work as sex slaves.

Senior state police sources in NSW and Victoria acknowledge that the policing of organised crime in the legal brothel sector is patchy and the regulation of brothels in both states often woeful.

Operation Raspberry has gathered testimony from two witnesses who allege that Lin Gao, the licensed manager of Candy Club, is part of a syndicate which in 2009 forced two women to work as sex slaves at Five Star in Woolloomooloo and at a second Sydney brothel, which is under new ownership, and at two other Melbourne brothels.

In witness statements to a Melbourne court hearing in August, two Chinese women alleged they were forced to engage in unsafe sex practices in these legal brothels and work up to seven days a week, servicing dozens of men. Every dollar they earned was allegedly returned to the syndicate that sent them from Asia to Australia.

"I did not know how much money I made or how much money I had paid off my debt. My mind was blank. I was just counting down the days," one alleges.

The statements identify Ms Gao as an alleged "big shareholder" and decision-maker connected to the trafficking syndicate's Australian operations, although she told the Herald through a lawyer that she was not involved in any impropriety.

The federal police court documents contain a large amount of information implicating Ms Gao and several of her Sydney and Melbourne associates in sex trafficking or other crimes, but only one syndicate member has been charged. At least three of these associates are still involved in running legal brothels in Sydney or Melbourne.

In NSW brothels are regulated by local councils under planning laws.

The City of Sydney's acting manager of the safe cities unit, Rebecca Martin, said issues of organised crime were beyond the scope of council officers, whose role was only to ensure brothels complied with their development consents.

''If we have any concerns about the treatment of sex workers, or illegal activity or immigration issues, we refer them to the NSW Police,'' she said. ''We work closely with the local area command.''

 

[Badran]

but I DO believe it can be sexually abusive. I think prostitution almost always falls into the latter category, despite the consent, for the reasons I've mentioned.

Yes, sure. But "can" and "almost always" is not the same as "always", and that was simply something that shouldn't have taken so long to be acknowledged.

(likelihood, not likability - hope you appreciate the tip from one second language speaker to another ).

Sure, why not. Thanks.

But yes, it remains extremely likely because a prostitute - however expensive and classy she is - will almost always emotionally dissociate during the act to get the job done.

First, for proper context, you had said:

It's to do with the belief that wanting = deserving, paired with the reality that prostitution is the most dangerous and traumatic job on earth. It's about as dangerous as being a soldier deployed in a war zone, and with many of the same psychological consequences. A prostitute is not your average, every day employee. She's a person who has considered the Donald Trump / sodomy / million dollars proposal (on a smaller scale) and decided "What the hell? I need the money!" And unlike you or I, who probably wouldn't go through with that deal for a billion dollars, she already knows she is able to dissociate and feel nothing during the unwanted penetration she must endure in order to get paid. And as far as not being beaten, raped or murdered during the transaction is concerned, she just keeps her fingers crossed - hence the high probability of PTSD.

My point is that even the most gentlemanly John in the world is penetrating somebody who is extremely likely to be going through that the whole time, and to him this is a far less pressing consideration than his own sexual or emotional gratification. That's entitlement. "I want = I deserve", coupled with "my wants and needs > your wants and needs".

And i had quoted the second paragraph and pointed out that it's not extremely likely for all of that to be the circumstances of the prostitute, if some careful considerations were taken in choosing and dealing with her. So it was not revolved around the issue of dissociation from the sexual act, but much more.

Second, part of the points which were ignored throughout these exchanges is some of the examples brought up as to the similarity of what is put on the line in some jobs, in some cases even more, and how we don't approach people who take benefit of these services similarly.

Third, i agree that most prostitutes in general and most of the time dissociate during the sexual act, but if under some of the more positive conditions proposed, i don't actually consider the scenario to be necessitating of carelessness on the side of the john towards the feelings of the prostitute. If she's a prostitute who has chosen the business out of her own will, for financial gain for example (not desperate need - gain), sets her conditions for the things she would do and the things she wouldn't do, and they have sex on that basis, the john would be accepting the premise that the woman most likely doesn't care for him but is willing to entertain him for a big amount of money, which would be beneficial to her and is something she really wants. So his enjoyment can exist based around the fact that she wants to do it, even if for other reasons. Some people may be aware of your proposed psychological dissociation and some might not, or may hold different views on it.

In short, if the common issues questioning the choice of the prostitute are not present, then the premise of prostitution in itself, in my view, does not necessitate entitlement or selfishness on the part of the john since it can be seen as an exchange of interest. Each side gives the other something they want. If someone was particularly aware that disassociation was as psychologically damaging, yet goes through with it anyway, then in that case it is indeed selfishness and entitlement may be appropriately applied.

I hate the chopping block, to be honest. It usually serves as a great excuse to challenge individual bits and pieces but miss the overall idea being communicated and it creates a fractal universe of pointless sub-debates. So I'm going to reassemble your ideas into one idea and respond to that.

I hate a lot of things too. I hate it when some of my points get ignored, or when i propose an opinion and a personal experience to elaborate on it and it gets reduced to a fantastical hypothetical, but i'm happy to find a comfortable way for us to communicate.

There's a heck of a lot in there about your personal preferences for how to obtain sex with a woman, all the methods someone might use and the reasons they might desire the sex, but not for one moment did you consider the possibility of just going without. It's a choice between voluntary couplings and hiring a woman to pretend she is happy to have sex with you.

That's what entitlement is. "I want = I deserve." A non-entitled attitude looks more like this: "Sometimes we don't get what we want, and that's OK".

Okay.

1) Your response didn't address the aspect that these considerations i offered address, which is your proposition of entitlement being the crucial distinction between people who would hire a prostitute and people who would not, and there in fact being no other distinction.

2) Most people do in fact obtain sex, so it's reasonable to orient my examples on that. I was talking about distinctions between people who would decide to use prostitutes and people who do not, and i focused the offered thoughts on preferences and possible considerations in regards to how to obtain sex, not because going without is not an option, but because that's something anybody will think of. How to actually obtain what they want, and preferences in that regard was the example i was using.

3) In regards to the bold parts, i honestly find them hilarious, but understandable. May be if you knew me more, you would understand how misplaced they are. But the topic is not about me.

 

[sandandfoam]

I don't see the problem with being insulting or shaming towards people who hire prostitutes. They are part of an intrinsically abusive set up.
I'd go further and say that hiring of prostitutes should be illegal.
I would like to see the selling of sex decriminalized and the buying of it criminalized.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I'm just thinking out loud here, but...

I can see how it might be considered a form of coercion to offer someone money in exchange for something they were reluctant or unwilling to do, but in no position to refuse to do, due to financial desperation.

For instance, many or most individual cases of prostitution might fall under that heading. But also many individual cases of hiring people for undesired jobs that have nothing to do with prostitution might also fall under the same heading. Indeed, millions of workers worldwide might be considered coerced into taking their jobs by this reasoning.

It would not at first seem to change much if the person were paid better, but in practice it probably would change a lot. If I am being paid $10.50/hr in the American South to perform a dangerous task -- such as cleaning up toxic waste without genuinely adequate protection -- and it's about the only job available to me that meets my modest living expenses, then it would seem at first to make little difference whether I was paid $10.50/hr or $150.00/hr for that job. Little difference strictly in terms of whether I was coerced into taking the job, I mean.

But, on second glance, there might be a significant difference between the two jobs due solely to the income provided from each. I may be desperate for the money in both instances -- and so in that sense it's coercive in both senses -- but I may be more than willing to sell my future health for $150.00/hr, while I feel much less than willing to sell it for $10.50/hr.

And how willing I am is key here. It's totally of the essence. For we cannot consider ourselves coerced into doing something that we are happy to do.

So, I would think there's a possibility that some or even many people would be happily willing to exchange sex for money if the money were good enough. And if they are actually happily willing to do so, then they are not coerced.

I'm not sure if you still think paying prostitutes more is a possible solution or not, but I don't think so.
The sex "industry" is pretty much still the only "industry" in which a woman generally earns more than men, right there is a indicator of how women are valued. Does it really need a pay raise to further entice more women (let's face it men are not beating down the doors of brothels and escort services to compete) into a dangerous psychologically damaging job that is sexually abusive.
Women should be elevated both socially and economically so she doesn't have to be trapped in sexual servitude to men.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I don't see the problem with being insulting or shaming towards people who hire prostitutes. They are part of an intrinsically abusive set up.
I'd go further and say that hiring of prostitutes should be illegal.
I would like to see the selling of sex decriminalized and the buying of it criminalized.

I actually find it really funny and sad how this thread turned into the fee fees of johns and romanticising the possibility of a "gentlemen" John and being a john sympathiser, when they are not the ones being dehumanised here and they are actually the ones doing the harm whether they know it or not.

 

[Badran]

I actually find it really funny and sad how this thread turned into the fee fees of johns and romanticising the possibility of a "gentlemen" John and being a john sympathiser, when they are not the ones being dehumanised here and they are actually the ones doing the harm whether they know it or not.

I'm sorry we couldn't talk about this without reducing each other's points and talking past each other.

I blame my piggish behavior for that.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I'm sorry we couldn't talk about this without reducing each other's points and talking past each other.

I blame my piggish behavior for that.

Really I sometimes find it difficult to articulate what I want to say, I get frustrated, so really that is to blame. But Alceste pretty much covered a lot of what I think. If a prostitute has to enter into a dissociated state to cope, whether you know she is or you don't know, you are still contributing to the problem. You don't have to pick a woman up off the street and slap her for you to dehumanise her, dehumanisation doesn't have to be overtly violent for it to be a problem.
I can not identify with the John, probably because I don't have same privilege to and because I refuse to. In all honesty, I don't really care about his feelings towards buying a prostitute.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see the problem with being insulting or shaming towards people who hire prostitutes. They are part of an intrinsically abusive set up.
I'd go further and say that hiring of prostitutes should be illegal.
I would like to see the selling of sex decriminalized and the buying of it criminalized.

The problem with insulting & shaming is that it introduces rancor & abuse into a discussion of the issue. Just as heathens & believers each believe they're right, this is no reason to spit venom at each other. Surely, we can dispense with that when disagreeing about the ethics of a voluntary relationship between customer & service provider.
Now if we're talking about enslavement, this is another matter. It seems fair to heap abuse upon the criminal who would steal another's freedom.

 

[sandandfoam]

Surely, we can dispense with that when disagreeing about the ethics of a voluntary relationship between customer & service provider.
Now if we're talking about enslavement, this is another matter. It seems fair to heap abuse upon the criminal who would steal another's freedom.

You've answered your own point.

In the op I said 'in a perfect world...' We do not live in a perfect world.
In our world the reality is that prostitution is abusive and enslaving as evidenced by the huge amount of women trafficked annually. Estimates suggest 21 million people are enslaved annually and that 80% of these are enslaved for sexual servitude. That is about 16 million people forced into prostitution every year. Many of them children. It is appalling. I don't give a fig for niceties regarding hypothetical arrangements when the reality is rape, torture, and misery.

 

[Alceste]

I actually find it really funny and sad how this thread turned into the fee fees of johns and romanticising the possibility of a "gentlemen" John and being a john sympathiser, when they are not the ones being dehumanised here and they are actually the ones doing the harm whether they know it or not.

I find that funny too. It seems as though men automatically identify and sympathize with the John and not the prostitute. Why does he want sex? What are his other options? Maybe his marriage is unhappy. Maybe he's disabled. Maybe he's really depressed and needs someone to talk to, then screw. Who cares????

Sure, it's possible to conceive of a decent human being who hires a prostitute, but ultimately pointless. So what if there's a gentleman John out there? A prostitute sees a dozen johns a week, and even if this one doesn't rape or abuse her, the next one might. Or the last one did! Imagine that! Thinking it's ok to hire a woman who was just violently raped yesterday to let you penetrate her, because you're a nice guy and you're really unhappy in your marriage. Then feeling ripped off if she doesn't pretend to enjoy it.

I don't care what your reasons are or how much of a nice person you are, when you're seeing a prostitute, it's just not a gentlemanly thing to do.

This is why I keep asking them to imagine being sodomised by Donald Trump for a million dollars. Really trying to put yourself in a prostitute's shoes is the quickest cure to Pretty Woman syndrome.