An example of why I am against prostitution

[Alceste]

Freudian psychoanalysis has expanded and adapted to new dynamisms. While there has been much progress since the 1930s, I think that any real thinking has been absent from mainstream psychology. Modern psychology seems to be stuck in the world of appearances and has a dearth of deep and meaningful theories. This comes as no surprise, since the shallow cognitive-behavioral therapy dominates everything. While Freud was wrong in a decent number of specifics, I do believe his general framework of psychoanalysis has stood the test of time.

P.S. I think most of Freud's patients were males, but I could be wrong on that point. I know he saw a good number of both sexes.

Sometimes what appears at first glance to be a deep and meaningful theory is little more than a convenient oversimplification of an extremely complex reality the theorist does not understand. At least that's what I think. That's why I find "penis envy" to be such a funny idea.

 

[Badran]

In a perfect world where everything was voluntary I am sure prostitution would be fine.
In the world we live in it is an awful business.
Relative sold girl (15) for

As other posters conveyed, i really don't see this as either a good argument or a good example to use to argue against prostitution.

 

[Badran]

Those people are actually providing a necessary service. They are not laying on their backs for creepy, entitled, rapist men being sexually abused.

And in my opinion Johns are entitled a holes, I don't feel sympathetic towards their sexual "needs" even if some prostitutes do feel sorry for them, I don't.

Why do you feel such a blanket judgement is justified in this case?

 

[Sunstone]

As other posters conveyed, i really don't see this as either a good argument or a good example to use to argue against prostitution.

The very best damn reason to prohibit prostitution, in my opinion, is the simple thought that you might someday try your hand at being a gigolo.

 

[Darkness]

Sometimes what appears at first glance to be a deep and meaningful theory is little more than a convenient oversimplification of an extremely complex reality the theorist does not understand. At least that's what I think. That's why I find "penis envy" to be such a funny idea.

It might, however, be a little unfair to judge Freud's entire contribution to psychology on the basis of his most controversial and faulty conception. Albert Einstein who revolutionized physics could be ridiculed for his refusal to accept anything but a deterministic universal. He basically fought against the quantum revolution, and could therefore be viewed as highly reactionary. Yet, it would be a mistake to discard Einstein from physics.

 

[Badran]

The very best damn reason to prohibit prostitution, in my opinion, is the simple thought that you might someday try your hand at being a gigolo.

Actually i already tried and it didn't work.

Potential customers said i had poor communication skills and that i lacked any form of sexual appeal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually i already tried and it didn't work.
Potential customers said i had poor communication skills and that i lacked any form of sexual appeal.

And the price you quoted was quite high.

 

[Sunstone]

Potential customers said i had poor communication skills and that i lacked any form of sexual appeal.

The brutes! I'd sue for defamation of character, if I were you. Lack of sex appeal? How can so many she-camels and nanny goats possibly be wrong about you?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Why do you feel such a blanket judgement is justified in this case?

I believe using money is a form of coercion and part of male entitlement. If it takes a woman to be raped, poor, or drugged addicted for her be there, to take advantage of that is an act of violation in my opinion.

 

[Badran]

I believe using money is a form of coercion and part of male entitlement. If it takes a woman to be raped, poor, or drugged addicted for her be there, to take advantage of that is an act of violation in my opinion.

I understand how the second sentence justifies the claim of coercion, but not the entitlement claim. Could you clarify on that?

As to the basis itself, the second sentence, i'm pretty sure those are not the only reasons for why someone decides to be a prostitute, despite them being indeed the most common reasons. There are differing classes and conditions for prostitution world wide, from seriously horrific conditions to ones that get described very positively by the prostitute, and which do sound positive for the most part, even if those aren't nearly as common. So for example, if someone were to seek those prostitutes in particular (who are normally much more expensive to be with), has a good time and goes home, it seems pretty unfair to me to equate or lump them in with people who pick up prostitutes off the street, abuse them, pay up and then slap them on they way out of the car.

On top of that, there's also the aspect that has been pointed out, that doing a job that is perceived negatively out of need for money specifically isn't really exclusive to prostitution. I understand the separation of sex as more important in some abstract way or another (which i generally don't agree with - though recognize some merit in one area), but this only means that the person is losing more, rather than raising of a question of coercion all of a sudden when such question isn't raised in other similar scenarios. Or am i missing something?

 

[sandandfoam]

Or am i missing something?

I think you are

FACT 1: Prostitution is not an issue of ‘choice’.
Many women ‘choose’ to enter prostitution through lack of choice and a large number are coerced by pimps or traffickers.
75% of women in prostitution became involved when they were children
70% spent time in care and 45% report experiencing sexual abuse during their childhoods. Once in prostitution, 9 out of 10 surveyed women would like to exit but feel unable to do so.
It is the men who buy sex who are exercising free choice, and it is this ‘choice’ to purchase vulnerable women and girls that expands prostitution and fuels trafficking for sexual exploitation.
FACT 2: Prostitution is not about sex.

Prostitution is about exploitation, violence and abuse.
More than half of UK women in prostitution have been raped and/or seriously sexually assaulted at the hands of pimps and punters; up to 95% of women in street prostitution are problematic drug users; and 68% of women in prostitution meet the criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the same range as victims of torture undergoing treatment:
“I would numb my feelings… I would actually leave my body and go somewhere else with my thoughts and with my feelings until he got off me and it was over with. I don’t know how else to explain it except it felt like rape. It was rape to me.” (Survivor of prostitution)
FACT 3: Prostitution is harmful in and of itself.

Legalisation or complete decriminalisation of the entire industry doesn’t remove the harm of prostitution– it simply makes that harm legal.
Legalisation or complete decriminalisation of the industry does not deal with the long term psychological and physical effects of having unwanted and often violent and abusive sex numerous times a day and having to act like you enjoy it. To cope with this, women in prostitution report having to disassociate and ‘split off’ in their heads – hence why drug and alcohol abuse is so prevalent.

source Facts | Turn Off The Red Light.ie

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you are
source Facts | Turn Off The Red Light.ie

The facts you list are awful indeed, but consider that prostitution is already illegal, so opposing it is the status quo (ignoring parts of NV). The only step left to opponents wanting further restriction it is to increas enforcement & punishment....spend more on law enforcement, put more people in jail (& not just "johns", but all parties to the crime, pimps & prostitutes too).
(Were I a conspiracy theory type, I might blame more than just prudes & feminisits, but primarily the justice industrial complex (lawyers, cops, judges, prisons) for treating bimbos & customers as grist for their mill.)

That seems a recipe for disaster along the lines of 1930s prohibition. To drive a large & durable enterprise underground is to make everything about it criminal. But I have a solution:
Legalize it. Make it above board. Regulate the health & conditions. It might be immoral, but at least it would more moral than what's going on now.

 

[Badran]

I think you are

I wouldn't put it past myself, but don't you think you're missing parts of what i said?

Emphasis mine:

As to the basis itself, the second sentence, i'm pretty sure those are not the only reasons for why someone decides to be a prostitute, despite them being indeed the most common reasons. There are differing classes and conditions for prostitution world wide, from seriously horrific conditions to ones that get described very positively by the prostitute, and which do sound positive for the most part, even if those aren't nearly as common. So for example, if someone were to seek those prostitutes in particular (who are normally much more expensive to be with), has a good time and goes home, it seems pretty unfair to me to equate or lump them in with people who pick up prostitutes off the street, abuse them, pay up and then slap them on they way out of the car.

I'm addressing what i think is an unfair generalized judgment, and in the case of your OP, what i think is an inappropriate argument - not questioning the severe realities of prostitution in the majority of the time.

That article is pretty interesting though, in some of the titles it gave to each fact. Seems a bit misleading to me. Let's use one of the relevant supposed facts from those you listed to address what i'm trying to say:

FACT 1: Prostitution is not an issue of ‘choice’.

Many women ‘choose’ to enter prostitution through lack of choice and a large number are coerced by pimps or traffickers.
75% of women in prostitution became involved when they were children

75% of women in prostitution becoming involved when they were children is a fact (or at least according to the study), and it is a fact that in those cases, no choice was made. What is not a fact is the title, "Prostitution is not an issue of 'choice'", because it implies the other 25% were disintegrated in acid.

Such generalization can be appropriate in some contexts, but since we're specifically addressing the concept of prostitution in itself and whether or not it can be regulated in any positive light, seems to me the titles are pretty much trying to settle the question before actually offering the answers. It's pretty important to acknowledge these considerable minority of cases. Both for fair consideration (such as in regards to the issue i was talking about in the post you quoted) and for assessing whether or not such minority of cases can be made more regular.

Also this:

“I would numb my feelings… I would actually leave my body and go somewhere else with my thoughts and with my feelings until he got off me and it was over with. I don’t know how else to explain it except it felt like rape. It was rape to me.” (Survivor of prostitution)

Is more than understood. It felt like rape because she didn't want to be there.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I understand how the second sentence justifies the claim of coercion, but not the entitlement claim. Could you clarify on that?

As to the basis itself, the second sentence, i'm pretty sure those are not the only reasons for why someone decides to be a prostitute, despite them being indeed the most common reasons. There are differing classes and conditions for prostitution world wide, from seriously horrific conditions to ones that get described very positively by the prostitute, and which do sound positive for the most part, even if those aren't nearly as common. So for example, if someone were to seek those prostitutes in particular (who are normally much more expensive to be with), has a good time and goes home, it seems pretty unfair to me to equate or lump them in with people who pick up prostitutes off the street, abuse them, pay up and then slap them on they way out of the car.

On top of that, there's also the aspect that has been pointed out, that doing a job that is perceived negatively out of need for money specifically isn't really exclusive to prostitution. I understand the separation of sex as more important in some abstract way or another (which i generally don't agree with - though recognize some merit in one area), but this only means that the person is losing more, rather than raising of a question of coercion all of a sudden when such question isn't raised in other similar scenarios. Or am i missing something?

Sexual coercion raises the question of consent. I do not view prostitution as meaningful consent for above reasons. Coercion goes hand in hand with entitlement, Johns say they know the woman they are buying doesn't really enjoy it or doesn't necessarily find them attractive, yet they expect those women to fulfill their sexual desires by doing their "job" and acting like they like it. And even if it's clear to them that the woman does not like it and doesn't want to be there some how they manage to get through it because they paid for it and are trying to get their money's worth. It's sexual abuse, and that is very clear when you realise most prostitutes have mental health issues and a lot are drug/alcohol dependent.

 

[Alceste]

Sexual coercion raises the question of consent. I do not view prostitution as meaningful consent for above reasons. Coercion goes hand in hand with entitlement, Johns say they know the woman they are buying doesn't really enjoy it or doesn't necessarily find them attractive, yet they expect those women to fulfill their sexual desires by doing their "job" and acting like they like it. And even if it's clear to them that the woman does not like it and doesn't want to be there some how they manage to get through it because they paid for it and are trying to get their money's worth. It's sexual abuse, and that is very clear when you realise most prostitutes have mental health issues and a lot are drug/alcohol dependent.

That's actually true. I had to get a criminal background check to volunteer in a women's centre because the prostitutes, homeless women, mentally ill, drug addicted or impoverished clientele are a highly vulnerable population. You also need those checks to work with children or disabled people. And that rule didn't come out of a vacuum - it arose because the vilest, most sadistic human predators are drawn to vulnerable populations like moths to a flame.

Outside our doors, nobody was screening the people these women deal with. That's exactly why they're 18 times more likely to be murdered than you or I.

 

[Badran]

Sexual coercion raises the question of consent. I do not view prostitution as meaningful consent for above reasons. Coercion goes hand in hand with entitlement, Johns say they know the woman they are buying doesn't really enjoy it or doesn't necessarily find them attractive, yet they expect those women to fulfill their sexual desires by doing their "job" and acting like they like it. And even if it's clear to them that the woman does not like it and doesn't want to be there some how they manage to get through it because they paid for it and are trying to get their money's worth. It's sexual abuse, and that is very clear when you realise most prostitutes have mental health issues and a lot are drug/alcohol dependent.

Okay, i think my question is not clear. When i asked about why you feel such a blanket judgement is justified, that meant that i'm specifically curious as to why you think even in the cases where some of the most common problems are not present, still johns deserve to be labeled with the things you associated with them.

Your generalized statement suggests an inherent problem with the concept of prostitution in itself, the concept of providing sexual services in exchange for money, even if in a scenario where the prostitute chose to do that job out of desire for a considerable financial gain to what she perceives as a not so bad job, or as a temporary career that she thinks would give her a good financial boost while being relatively easy (from her perception of it), that can even be fun sometimes (which some prostitutes report to be their perception of the job, particularly the 'high class' ones), or whatever other considerations.

In cases like this, where a prostitute is not forced to do the job, but wants to do the job, sets the boundaries, and a man goes to her, buys some time with her (rather than buys her), have fun within those boundaries she set, pays up and leaves, with her having provided him with what he wanted or needed (and in some cases out of real fun rather than just knowing what to act), in what way is he possibly being entitled or taking advantage of her?

According to Wiki, sexual abuse is:

Sexual abuse, also referred to as molestation, is forcing undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another

If you accept that definition, how is that the case in the above scenario?

Once more, not for you Horrorble, but for anyone who has trouble keeping up, i am specifically talking about uncommon scenarios, because the blanket judgment i'm trying to understand does not exclude those uncommon scenarios, which i think should be excluded.

 

[Alceste]

Okay, i think my question is not clear. When i asked about why you feel such a blanket judgement is justified, that meant that i'm specifically curious as to why you think even in the cases where some of the most common problems are not present, still johns deserve to be labeled with the things you associated with them.

Your generalized statement suggests an inherent problem with the concept of prostitution in itself, the concept of providing sexual services in exchange for money, even if in a scenario where the prostitute chose to do that job out of desire for a considerable financial gain to what she perceives as a not so bad job, or as a temporary career that she thinks would give her a good financial boost while being relatively easy (from her perception of it), that can even be fun sometimes (which some prostitutes report to be their perception of the job, particularly the 'high class' ones), or whatever other considerations.

In cases like this, where a prostitute is not forced to do the job, but wants to do the job, sets the boundaries, and a man goes to her, buys some time with her (rather than buys her), have fun within those boundaries she set, pays up and leaves, with her having provided him with what he wanted or needed (and in some cases out of real fun rather than just knowing what to act), in what way is he possibly being entitled or taking advantage of her?

According to Wiki, sexual abuse is:



If you accept that definition, how is that the case in the above scenario?

Once more, not for you Horrorble, but for anyone who has trouble keeping up, i am specifically talking about uncommon scenarios, because the blanket judgment i'm trying to understand does not exclude those uncommon scenarios, which i think should be excluded.

One does have to wonder about the practicalities of your proposal. How does the John know whether she is a victim of childhood abuse, a drug addict, a victim of coercion (physical or economic), or any of the other things that you suggest might make buying sex from a woman OK? If he wasn't confident she didn't meet those criteria, would he still buy sex with her?

As far as I can see, given the way these things go, if there has ever been an encounter between an enthusiastic, psychologically stable, financially secure prostitute and a John who actually cared about any of those things, it had to have been either a coincidence or negotiated fantasy role playing between lovers.

If the John would buy the use of her body regardless of her own feelings for the job, he's still acting from an entitled and sexually abusive psychological foundation - even if that specific transaction does not happen to revictimize a survivor of childhood abuse.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

 

[Sunstone]

One does have to wonder about the practicalities of your proposal. How does the John know whether she is a victim of childhood abuse, a drug addict, a victim of coercion (physical or economic), or any of the other things that you suggest might make buying sex from a woman OK? If he wasn't confident she didn't meet those criteria, would he still buy sex with her?

As far as I can see, given the way these things go, if there has ever been an encounter between an enthusiastic, psychologically stable, financially secure prostitute and a John who actually cared about any of those things, it had to have been either a coincidence or negotiated fantasy role playing between lovers.

If the John would buy the use of her body regardless of her own feelings for the job, he's still acting from an entitled and sexually abusive psychological foundation - even if that specific transaction does not happen to revictimize a survivor of childhood abuse.

I have to disagree here. I think Badran is simply being reasonable to suppose that there are most likely some prostitutes -- and they are most likely high-end prostitutes -- who are content or even happy with their jobs. This is a large world with all kinds of people in it. If only a fraction of a fraction of the seven or eight billion people on this planet actually want to be prostitutes, there still might be millions of people who want to be prostitutes.

And, although Badran himself was too dumb to think of it, it would also have been reasonable of him to suppose there are most likely some caring johns out there. Again, the "this is a big world" principle is in operation.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Your thoughts are reasonable, except for the injection of "happily" into the equation. Nobody is "happy" to have sex that gives them no pleasure with someone they don't feel attracted to. Not for a dollar and not for ten thousand dollars.

Imagine this: you are offered a million dollars to be sodomized by Donald Trump, and you decide it's worth it to you. Are you really "happy" to be sodomized by Donald Trump, or are you just happy to have a million dollars?