There have been some reasonable discussions, but there has also been this:

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2010_09_05_archive.html#6361378893845871993

She was also the one who said that any woman into BDSM was not a feminist, and could not be a feminist.

A lot of what Boyd said seems to make sense, but doesn’t come with actual research to back it. 

For example, “Keep in mind that occasionally getting beaten up by a scary john is often a whole lot more desirable for many than the regular physical, psychological, and economic abuse they receive from their pimps.”

I really don’t know how the abuse the average sex worker who has a pimp gets compared to how often that same sex worker would get hurt by a client if s/he didn’t have a pimp. 

Also, what about the degree to which Craigslist is used by pimps to increase their range?  Is Craigslist really giving a big advantage to independent sex workers, or are their ads swamped by those of pimps who don’t actually have to spend their time sucking dicks?

“It just makes sense” isn’t enough for me.  So much of the discussion seems based on assumptions.  I realize the data is hard to get.  I’d just like to see something solid.  Even anecdotal evidence would be better than nothing.

As I said on another blog, in an ideal world, prostitution would not exist.

However, we do not live in that world, and banning Craigslist and its ads does not make that ideal world any closer; in fact, it makes it farther away as by taking away an advertising venue that the women (usually) in question can use to set their own schedules and find their own clients that helps keep them away from abusive pimps, the real bane of that world.

It’s great that liberals can stand on principle, but I draw the line when it harms real people.

We see how well standing on principle worked on the War on Drugs. Can’t believe so many liberals are willing to do the same thing to some of the most disadvantaged women there are with a War on Prostitution.

In 2001, I was visiting Amsterdam with my parents, sister, and one of her friends (as a stopover on the way to Africa.)  I enjoy going walking after dinner in European cities; it is a good way to beat jet lag.  Each night, one of my travel companions joined me.  As I had been to Amsterdam before, I became de facto tour guide.  There was one destination they all wanted to see…  The Red Light District.  (Perhaps taking my mother to the red light district was the most uncomfortable thing I have ever done.)

None of us partook…  At least, not when I was there.

I can understand the fascination for Americans to see something like this, so brazenly displayed and sold.  While there are (were?) places where one might see streetwalkers congregate, it is nothing like the Red Light District.

What I don’t get are the sex tours…  Were I inclined to patronize one of the women in a window, I don’t think I’d want to do it as part of a group of 30.

old, that kind of data is, for obvious reasons, hard to get.  But the experiences of people who actually work with sex workers indicates that many women who are still in prostitution have been able to get away from pimps through Craigslist.  In lieu of hard data that’s impossible to get, we should prioritize the experiences of those who actually listen to prostitutes.

Let’s face it; law enforcement mostly just wants prostitution to go away because people don’t like to look at it.  Mostly, they don’t care about the well-being of prostitutes.  They throw them in jail and treat them like scum.  When it’s a contest between activists and law enforcement on what’s the best way to deal with this problem, I’ll pick the activists.  When it’s a contest between people who have an ulterior anti-sex motive and people who actually think prostitutes are just as good as everyone else even though they have sex for money, I’ll pick the latter.  Hard data would be best, of course, but in lieu of it, let’s not discount the experiences of people who actually do the work.

Is it morally wrong to hire a prostitute?

Only 3 comments in and we have a man wanting to make this all about apologies and debates over the motives of men who hire prostitutes. 

Here’s your answer: I’m less interested in the airy philosophical debates and more interested in the basic realities.  And the basic realities are that men who are interested in paying for sex rarely have noble intentions, or even just ordinary “fun between equals” intentions.  The point of paying someone is for them to be subordinate to you.

What I don’t get are the sex tours… Were I inclined to patronize one of the women in a window, I don’t think I’d want to do it as part of a group of 30.

Well, I’ll hope that it’s because you don’t get the mindset of those so inclined.  Of course they treat it like a group activity.  If you fuck a prostitute and no one is around to witness your act of machismo, did it happen?  For the sport of turning sex into a site of male conquest over female bodies, witnesses always makes it hotter.

Let’s face it; law enforcement mostly just wants prostitution to go away because people don’t like to look at it.

Anecdotally, this makes sense—you hear about efforts to clean up the streetwalkers a lot more often than you hear about the efforts to clean up the high end escort agencies.

@quoderat, actually I’m unaware of echidne saying that about BDSM.  Now, Twistie at I blame the Patriarchy, she has said that.  A lot.

I’ve made it clear that I think that the myth that men buy sex because they “have” to, because no one else will fuck them or fuck them the way they want, is just that, a myth.

This may be technically true, but lordy, if you knew some of the guys I’ve met, especially through online gaming… trying to get laid along the non-prostitute path, for some of them, is just not likely.  Even if someone was willing, unless she almost literally threw herself at the guy, he wouldn’t know how to make it happen.  I would normally assume you know some people like this, but at the level I’m talking about, maybe not.

That being said.

And the basic realities are that men who are interested in paying for sex rarely have noble intentions, or even just ordinary “fun between equals” intentions.  The point of paying someone is for them to be subordinate to you.

In my limited experience, this is definitely true.  The couple of guys I know who have hired prostitutes fit this definition perfectly.  The rest just don’t get laid.  And while there are a couple of possible exceptions, the guys described in the Whore Journals seem to fit this to one extent or another as well.

Yeah it def. won’t go away. I just so happened to be looking at CL recently and there were tons of dudes seeking prostitutes in the m4w category. I didn’t check any of the others. (I wasn’t looking for a prostitution job, fwiw) But getting rid of the “adult services” section of CL will make it harder for prostitutes to stand out on CL and harder for men seeking prostitutes to stand out from those seeking girlfriends which will make a pimps services more valuable and freelance sex work less valuable, meaning more pimps overall.

What about the huge amount of guys who pay dominatrix’s to rough them up?  Are they just trying to subjugate women too?

Anyone who gets paid to perform a task is subordinate to the one paying.  I believe what Amanda is arguing is that by paying a sex worker, regardless of the specific act(s) being paid for, the man is using the woman as a tool for getting his rocks off rather than treating her as a full sexual partner.  Certainly there are guys who legitimately don’t view prostitutes in this way and still partake for whatever reason, but they’re the exceptions.

Argh. Let’s not get sucked into the troll’s JAQing off.

This won’t make the ads go away. It will make them harder to monitor. I don’t see any good anti-trafficking reason for this, just “ew gross make those SHAMEFUL ads begone”.

Like marijuana, prostitution is illegal in most places, and like drugs, it should be legalized and regulated, taxed.

Meanwhile, it IS illegal, and advertising it publicly is also illegal.

Censoring Craigslist will also create new jobs for pimps and other corrupt intermediaries, since it’ll temporarily make it a whole lot harder for individual scumbags to find clients.

This is the key takeaway – CL disintermediates any transaction that takes place on the site, and is open and free-form and focused on local community. This set-up is specifically designed to chase out bad actors in short order, whether we’re talking about scumbag pimps or scumbag landlords or real estate agents or scumbag employment services. Good actors who add actual value, meanwhile, can continue to find CL useful. The amazing thing is that the site works despite the absence of controls, and I credit a lot of that to Craig’s goodwill and the enormous amount of thought he put into creating the site.

Of course, we can’t expect opportunistic and lazy politicians to understand such things. They’re too busy undermining the First Amendment to gin up moral panics amongst technophobes who think a display ad for an escort on newsprint in a freebie weekly is somehow different and superior to one placed on CL.

It’s also important to note that the MSM—especially newspapers whose classified ad businesses were destroyed—were waiting for an opportunity like this to get their revenge on CL. One TV reporter did a particularly shameful ambush interview on Craig, as if he were a mob boss or child molester instead of the harmless self-described nerd with a pocket protector that he is. Make no mistake when reading articles in the paper about this: the MSM would love to see CL die.

(disclosure: I’ve worked with Craig Newmark and CL’s executives in the past, and admire the open and community-oriented philosophy of the company and its founders)

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to troll.

No, you were just seeking affirmation for all those “poor unf*ckable johns” (not you, to be sure, but “friends”), and didn’t even have the character to ask for it directly.  Google “prostitution” and “pandagon” and you’ll find all sorts of answers to your question, none of which will involve sex-negative or religious judgments.

I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, pimps exploit prostitutes - this is an incontrovertible fact, there’s really no way you can argue about it. On the other hand, pre-Craigslist research (I’m specifically referring to Sudhir Venkatesh’s work in a Chicago inner-city neighborhood off the top of my head here, though I’ve read others) showed that women working as independent street prostitutes were more frequently assaulted, robbed and murdered. I don’t know that there’s been any research that shows that CL-mediated pimp-free independent prostitution is safer; has there been? Basically, I think it’s more complex than this.

Meanwhile, it IS illegal, and advertising it publicly is also illegal.

When attorneys general shut down the back pages of the Village Voice and L.A. Weekly and similar papers, we can talk about censoring the ad business of CL. Indy giveaway weeklies count on revenues from escort ads to stay afloat. Craigslist only started charging for Erotic Services ads in an attempt to stave off potential lawsuits from the political hacks by adding another control mechanism – they make the bulk of of their revenue from the real estate and employment ads anyhow.

#18 - I was also interested in hearing her reasons for lumping johns in with pimps, when I saw her line, “deeply unpleasant men who get involved in the sex trade as johns and pimps.”  But then she went on to explain herself further on in the article.

It’s a good explanation of why being pro-sex work doesn’t have to mean you’re pro-sex work clients.

Is it the visibility, or the visible agency? Even allowing for the context, the street prostitute or the woman advertising on CL is acting with a certain level of apparent initiative that an escort or a woman in a brothel is not. I wonder to what degree that contributes to the distaste of the prudes. And the zeal of certain kinds of prosecutors.

And how long will it be before they go after the personals…

quoderat, you might clarify your original comment.  The post you linked to is on my blog but it is not by me.  Neither do I recall making statements about whether a woman into a BDSM is a feminist or ever can be one.

#13 is a troll who has been banned under that same name like 5 times, and under different names another 5 or so.  If there’s a rule against evading a ban, I’d suggest banning him so we can have a day or so without his… “contributions.”

As I mentioned above, I have not blogged on this topic.

But one thing we don’t seem to have information on is what percentage of the CL prostitution advertisers are pimps or traffickers of women and what percentage are sex workers who are acting on their own.  That would be the kind of information that would be needed to answer some of the questions Amanda’s post raises.

On the other hand, pre-Craigslist research (I’m specifically referring to Sudhir Venkatesh’s work in a Chicago inner-city neighborhood off the top of my head here, though I’ve read others) showed that women working as independent street prostitutes were more frequently assaulted, robbed and murdered.

I can see that happening to a street prostitute who has to stand on a street corner all night, but it seems somewhat less likely to happen to someone who gets clients remotely (ie through Craigslist).  If you actually physically have to stand in a public place, that makes you vulnerable to muggers and thieves who can watch you and learn your routine.  Plus they know that you’re standing there with a wad of cash from your clients.  If you have a pimp, there’s less of an incentive to try and rob you because that guy will be watching and beat the crap out of anyone who tries to mug you.

If you get your clients through remote means like Craigslist, you aren’t going to have the same issues (unless you get a creepy stalker, which is something else) because you’re not going to be going to the same corner doing the same thing night after night.  Your schedule is going to constantly be changing.  So while you would still be quite vulnerable to serial killer types, you’re far less likely to be robbed.

(I’m assuming that pimps on Craigslist don’t physically accompany their employees to every appointment any more than street pimps do, but I could be wrong.)

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to troll.

The reasons men who don’t hire prostitutes imagine they might hire prostitutes aren’t the reasons the men who do hire prostitutes are doing it for.  Looking at everything said, it’s unlikely people are going to separate the two.  In the current environment, the argument that considering the question you pose academically, outside of it’s context, isn’t a priority is a pretty strong one.

I’d like to take this opportunity to recommend the Killfile user script, which provides the ability to automatically collapse comments from the tiresome likes of Stick Rule and Dana. It works on Pandagon and on many other sites, and should work in most popular browsers—Internet Explorer excepted, of course, but then why are you still using last millennium’s browser anyway?

For Opera and Chrome users, the Killfile script should be usable without any extra effort—just click the big ‘Install’ button and you should be off and running. (If it’s working, you’ll see “hide comment” and “kill” options next to each comment in a Pandagon thread; “hide comment” collapses the individual comment you click it on, while “kill” collapses every comment from that poster. Both choices are easily reversible, too; a collapsed comment includes ‘show comment’ and ‘unkill’ options.)

For Firefox users, you’ll need to install the Greasemonkey plugin, which will allow you to run user scripts; once you have Greasemonkey installed, you’ll be able to install Killfile in the same way Opera and Chrome users can. You’ll need to restart Firefox after installing Greasemonkey, so there’s a little extra pain-in-the-neck involved, but the nice thing is that, since Killfile is designed for Firefox/Greasemonkey, you know for sure it’ll work. (I don’t use Chrome and use Opera only for online banking, so I can’t say how well it will work in those browsers; from what I’ve read, it should, but your mileage may vary and if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.)

Strongly, strongly recommended. Once you’re using it, all you have to do is click ‘kill’ next to whatever name Stick Rule is using to evade today’s ban, and that’s an end to it—you won’t have to look at a damn thing else he says on any Pandagon thread for the rest of the day, unless for some unimaginable reason you actually want to. (This will also help you avoid feeding the troll, so using Killfile is a win for everybody!)

If you get your clients through remote means like Craigslist, you aren’t going to have the same issues (unless you get a creepy stalker, which is something else) because you’re not going to be going to the same corner doing the same thing night after night.  Your schedule is going to constantly be changing.  So while you would still be quite vulnerable to serial killer types, you’re far less likely to be robbed.

And if you’re going to be a hooker, a brothel environment is still probably the best idea from both the point of view of your safety and community protection.  Legalise them, zone them, and license the owners and the workers.  You’ll still get outcall/escort services, but they’d eliminate streetwalkers.

The reasons men who don’t hire prostitutes imagine they might hire prostitutes aren’t the reasons the men who do hire prostitutes are doing it for.

That’s a great point.  It makes logical sense, that given the objection most of us have to hiring a prostitute—that the idea of buying sex is a huge turn-off—Amanda’s point is merely stating the converse—that for men who do hire them, the act of buying sex is a turn-on. 

One reason why we have a myth instead of that simple enough logic is that we (me, that is) don’t spend our time thinking logically about the interrelated dynamics of prostitution.  Getting me to think in new ways, but ways which are intuitive to me once I’m introduced to them—the biggest reason why I have come to love reading Amanda’s writing, and that of feminists in general.

old, that kind of data is, for obvious reasons, hard to get.  But the experiences of people who actually work with sex workers indicates that many women who are still in prostitution have been able to get away from pimps through Craigslist.  In lieu of hard data that’s impossible to get, we should prioritize the experiences of those who actually listen to prostitutes….Hard data would be best, of course, but in lieu of it, let’s not discount the experiences of people who actually do the work.
Comment #6: Amanda Marcotte on 09/08 at 06:46 PM

But Boyd isn’t a sex worker, and didn’t even say that she heard this from anyone who is a sex worker.  Just said it in a kind of “it’s obvious” way.

I’m not claiming they’d say something different, but in the articles I’ve read so far, I’m not seeing any self-employed sex workers telling us Craigslist helps the self-employed sex worker.

If someone has a link to an article or story like this I’d love to read it.  I think it’s very possible.  Without such information, we’re all just speculating.  If I were a pimp, I’d be all over Craigslist with innovative catchy new ads every week.

@#33 oldfeminist:i

Some blogs by sex workers about Craigslist (some of these may be NSFW):

http://swopeast.blogspot.com/2010/08/singapore-us-craigslist-sex-trafficking.html (also posted at http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/singapore-the-us-craigslist-sex-trafficking-and-wtf/)

http://deepthroated.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/traffickers-remain-in-business/

http://ampedstatus.com/my-experience-as-a-craigslist-hooker

I’m sure more can be found on Google, I remember reading a couple blogs about this a while back on Harlot’s Parlour, but it doesn’t seem to be working now. I’m not sure if the site is defunct or just not working right now…

@ 33:  I don’t think anyone’s saying that Craigslist has put an end to trafficking or put pimps out of business, but the very nature of the format means that, unlike with street or even brothel prostitution, you don’t need an intervening person between the worker and the client.  You need a pimp on the street to protect you from muggers and weirdos because you’re out in public where anyone can accost you; you need a madam in a brothel to pay the rent and keep its roof over your head.  But you don’t need them if you advertise on Craigslist because you can do it yourself.

It’s like how being a travel agent has essentially died as a profession now that people do everything themselves on Orbitz and Travelocity.  You can still go through a travel agent to plan your trip, but why not cut to the chase and contact the hotel/cruise line/airline yourself?

Echidne, I was talking about Suzie, not you—sorry for any confusion. Linking to your posts directly does not work correctly in most browsers.

The one person I know and also know about her sex work told me that Craigslist was difficult to use because other women in the trade would flag your ad if it was too explicit or just if it was competition.  So it was a constant battle to keep your contact information in place before a regular clientele list could be achieved (at which time things could go further under the radar.)  And since most of the prostitution on Craigslist (this info’s from her, not me) was just part-timers working for one or two nights a week (just to get a little extra money, not as a main source of income,) that allowed for the safety of refusal on their part since they weren’t desperate for the money so they weren’t as likely to allow themselves to be placed in desperate situations (my inference.)  I’m sure her case was not like all others, but I’d guess there are as many like her as there are streetwalkers with or without pimps.

This may be technically true, but lordy, if you knew some of the guys I’ve met, especially through online gaming… trying to get laid along the non-prostitute path, for some of them, is just not likely.

They aren’t the majority of prostitute’s customers.  No one is denying there are exceptions to the rule.  But the problem is invariably—-see comment 13—-there are men who try to make the exceptions stand in for the rule.  These men think they can get away with this, because the contempt for women that makes them sympathetic to johns (and often means they are johns) also inclines them to believe feminist bloggers are stupid.

I see you agree with me, of course.  I’m just pointing out that the tendency of men to try to make the exceptions stand in for the rule, in my experience, tailors rather neatly with long-standing issues regarding treating women with the same respect and dignity they accord men.

Also, Spiffy, what are the Whore Journals?  A book or a website?

Mnemosyne:

On the other hand, you can argue that CL makes things much easier for the pimp or trafficker as well, because they can reach more clients, a more diverse clientele and so forth. With less risk, because they have less of a physical establishment to leave traces.

This makes me wonder whether things like CL are reinforcing the divide between sex workers who are reasonably educated (decent computer access/skills, english as a first language) and those aren’t. (Or perhaps this is my privilege talking, thinking that internet use and access is a big deal)

Stick Rule’s attempts to evade the ban are far, far, far more pathetic than merely changing his name.  He actually uses an IP masker and he registers a new email address for each new iteration.  His need to post on this site eats up an incredible amount of his time.  What we can conclude from this is that he literally has no life—-no friends, certainly no girlfriend, and probably no job.

The point of Amanda’s essay, which I take as saying that taking these ads off Craigslist is not necessarily good for sex workers, is excellent.  It’s terrible that the history of prostitution laws and most law enforcement is an effort to get the distasteful conduct out of public sight.  The welfare of women drawn or kidnapped into the trade is rarely, at least in North America, a concern of the politicians or prosecutors.

However there are a few comments in the main post and comments I’d also like to respond to.

But the solution to this problem is cultural change that would make it so the demand for purchased sex dries up.

Good luck with that.  The phenomenon has been around for a few thousand years. 

I’m not a fan of men who think that they’re entitled to buy sex. I don’t have a problem with women who freely choose to sell it in the slightest—-a lot of them are good people, in my experience.

I’ve always seen that position as contradictory.  It says that women should be able to sell but that there shouldn’t be any customers.

I tend to believe people make sexual choices because that’s what they specifically want, and the act of buying sex is the turn-on and not incidental to the transaction.

I’ve read this from you before and it just seems a mental construction of yours based on your perspective as a relatively young, conventionally attractive, economically autonomous woman. You can have sex pretty much anytime you want with just about any unattached person you desire. Not so much with men.  The notion that the act of purchase is the turn on seems ridiculous to me.  I spend some time reading the escort review boards and no men rhapsodize on the monetary exchange. What I read there is a desire to avoid the efforts and entanglements a conventional “civilian” encounter requires to get to the sex part.  You may find that distasteful or immoral and I would disagree with you less there than on the notion that dominance is the motivation.

Anyone who gets paid to perform a task is subordinate to the one paying. I believe what Amanda is arguing is that by paying a sex worker, regardless of the specific act(s) being paid for, the man is using the woman as a tool for getting his rocks off rather than treating her as a full sexual partner. Certainly there are guys who legitimately don’t view prostitutes in this way and still partake for whatever reason, but they’re the exceptions.
Comment #16: Spiffy McBang

As to the first italicized sentence, if you really mean “subordinate” then so what?  If you meant “subjugated” I respectfully disagree.  A lawyer is “subordinate” to the client who pays him only in the sense that the lawyer is supposed to do what the client wants or what is in the client’s best interest (within legal and ethical bounds).  That may make the lawyer subordinate to the client but not subjugated in any negative sense, by the perspective of the client or the lawyer. Marxist analysis would say that the very act of payment for work or service is exploitative in a negative way.  If that’s what you’re saying, then I can only say I disagree completely. 

As for the second italicized sentence, I don’t see how you can possibly know they’re the exceptions without some survey or research.  Do you know of any? Whenever the topic of prostitution comes up on this board the broad generalizations without evidence are regrettable—and apparently baseless.

I’m bothered by baseless generalizations about the motives of others, whether it’s done by the left or by the right (the most prominent among those being Rush Limbaugh).

But Boyd isn’t a sex worker, and didn’t even say that she heard this from anyone who is a sex worker.

But Gira, who repeats the same points, was in fact a sex worker.  Both actually work with sex workers.  The notion that they’re just spinning their wheels in the same way that the prosecutors are is simply wrong.  They actually work with actual sex workers, and make decisions based on what sex workers tell them they are experiencing.

paul,

It’s not going too far out on a limb to imagine that there’s a large divide between the prostitution options of those with internet connections and those without.  The customer base is also different.  But I’d bet the similarities among those groups are greater than the differences.

And I wouldn’t characterize craigslist as “reinforcing the divide”.  The divide between those with computers and those without doesn’t exist because of anything other than simple economics and all the complex circumstances that make the rich rich and the poor poor and those in between in between.  Craigslist is about one-tenth of one-hundredth of a tiny portion of all that.

Good luck with that.  The phenomenon has been around for a few thousand years. 

Yes, it’s called the patriarchy.  It’s interesting that it’s only when it comes to sex work that liberal men will show up and basically tell feminists that bringing an end to the patriarchy is impossible, so we should simply give up.  When I criticize marital inequality, reproductive coercion, pay inequality, treating women like they’re stupid, Nice Guys®, name your manifestation of patriarchy—-everyone agrees that overturning tradition of thousands of years and ending the patriarchy is a legitimate and achievable goal.  But when it comes to sex work, all of a sudden this particular manifestation of the patriarchy becomes immovable! 

Sorry, but I disagree.  I think we can end sexism and misogyny.

It says that women should be able to sell but that there shouldn’t be any customers.

How is that a contradiction?  I think it should be legal for people to be in unequal marriages, but I still fight the demand for subservient wives.  I think it should be legal for people to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, but I’ll argue with them.  I don’t believe in religion in general and write about why people should give it up, but I think it should be legal.  That something should be legal doesn’t make it right.  And it doesn’t make the customers anything but scum.

Not so much with men.

The notion that men who visit sex workers are unable to get girlfriends or masturbate is not born out by the evidence.  Sex workers will happily tell you about the wives and girlfriends that their clients usually have.  But please, tell me how Eliot Spitzer *had* to go to prostitutes because no one, including his lovely wife or the piles of women that a politician meets in a day, would have sex with a handsome, successful man.

The notion that all women get laid whenever they want by whoever they want is not born out by the evidence, either.

If you meant “subjugated” I respectfully disagree.

Keep telling yourself that.  I have thousands of years of patriarchy to disprove the notion that men are indifferent to the subjugation of women.

I will point out that by saying that men who visit prostitutes are dicks is in no way saying that all men are awful.  Unless, of course, you think all men visit prostitutes.  I imagine it’s a very small percentage, perhaps even lower than the 5% of men that will admit they’ve raped someone and the somewhat higher percentage that beat their partners, and the even higher percentage that treat heterosexual partnerships as an opportunity to get a woman to submit through emotional violence.  Though there is undoubtedly cross-pollination, i.e. most rapist are abusers, and I’m sure many of that group visit prostitutes.

Also, Middleaged, as for your contention that men who visit prostitutes are hard up and aren’t in the position to say no, there’s a nice, shiny, new article at Salon disproving that assertion quite neatly.

Four men showed up at the door that afternoon, and they all left within minutes, if not seconds. Money made = $0…..

I went home that night without a cent earned. Before I even got to my apartment, Lisa had sent me e-mails directing me to makeup application YouTube videos and links to an online shop called Yandy.com where I could buy the “type” of clothes I suddenly needed to invest my last measly dollars in. It was like Forever 21 for aspiring call girls.

Once she learned to wear clothes and make-up that made her look ridiculous, she started to make money.  This doesn’t seem like the result of men that are desperate and will take what they can get.  It actually seems more like men who have a particular fantasy in mind—-let’s call it subjugation—-and they will balk unless they’re getting exactly what they want.  Which is, of course, the opposite of how Middleaged imagines johns think.

You know…if a dude cant get laid, you know what he has 99% of the time? His own two hands.

This discussion reminded me of an article I read back in 1999, and it is still on line:

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/04.08.99/cover/guyglut-9914.html

(I know one of the people interviewed, and no, it isn’t me.)

Granted, this was at the peak of the Silicon Valley boom…

Thanks for the Salon link, though it hardly “proves” anything except her experience.  The experiences reported in the links provided by “revierie” at #34 above are different.  I would consider them all valid descriptions of what occurs there. 

how Middleaged imagines johns think.

It’s not how I “imagine” they think, it’s what I read that they write that leads me to conclude what many or most of them think, at least at the relatively consensual sites.  What I’m objecting to is your imagination of what most of them (the “rule”) think, which seem to be based on a thought process, a standpoint perspective, rather than evidence.

Unless, of course, you think all men visit prostitutes.  I imagine it’s a very small percentage, perhaps even lower than the 5% of men that will admit they’ve raped someone

Sometimes you say the most astonishing things.  From an ABC News poll, random sample of 1500 people in the U.S. in 2004: 

“ Fifteen percent of men – and three in 10 single men age 30 and older – have paid for sex.”
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/959a1AmericanSexSurvey.pdf

Zifnab,

It’s not absurd in the context of illegal labor.  Seeking illegal labor involves different motivations.  Yes, there are still the same ones that are present with legal labor.  But illegal labor involves more: the ability to abuse the workers, the ability to pay less than a legal rate, the ability to get over on someone, and so on.  It’s not a guarantee of abusive roles becoming dominant, but it’s certainly not outside all possibility and thus “absurd”.  There’s no denying that the men who pay women to do things they can’t get without paying just might be paying for subordinate behavior.  It could be an act or it could be real, but there’s something about it that makes Amanda’s point very much a valid one.

I think of David Vitter and then all doubt leaves: Amanda is correct.

Thanks for the Salon link, though it hardly “proves” anything except her experience. 

See what I mean about how this reflects long-standing issues with women.  The #2 gambit with the Sad, Unfuckable John defense is whipped out is to deny that women’s experiences and voices should be taken seriously.  Which leads me to believe men who defend johns do so out of an emotional need to defend at least some sexism. 

Anyway, that’s just one example, Middleaged.  I can promise you, the sex work industry is not full of beggars who can’t be choosers as clients.  I have many other examples, just from this week!  For instance, Bitch has an article about how black strippers make less money than white strippers, because those hard up men you feel so much sympathy for feel like they can happily pass over sexual stimulation from black women.  Due to them being so hard up.  Also, the now departed $pread Magazine would routinely do articles on how sex workers that aren’t conventionally attractive can find niches to make money.  Again, those hard up men are awfully choosy!

Fifteen percent of men – and three in 10 single men age 30 and older – have paid for sex.

Well, I never said that misogyny wasn’t widespread.  I’ve often argued that it is extremely widespread.  This particular flavor is more widespread than I would have thought.  That’s too bad for women….but really good for the relatively rare straight men who are enlightened enough to see through the excuses misogynists make for themselves.  But you know who is really stuck, because of this, in a beggars can’t be choosers spot?  Women.  A lot of women feel they have to settle for sexist choads, because there’s not enough non-sexists to go around.

Which, of course, makes men whining that they can’t get laid even more ridiculous.  Men aren’t the gender that has to spend twice as much of their time (if not more) than the opposite sex on grooming and making themselves acceptable for sexual attention.  When I hear dudes complain they’re hard up and have to go to prostitutes, what I hear is, “I can’t get a woman who is trashy-hot, submissive, and basically on the clock unless I actually pay for it.  Actual girlfriends have needs besides attending to my every sexual desire.  They have sexual desires of their own.  They have to dress in ways that are more dignified, like because they have a life outside of being fucked by me.  They want to be listened to in exchange for listening.  Fuck that, I’m just paying someone.  And I’m hard up, pity me.”

The point of paying someone is to get them to perform a task you can’t or won’t do yourself.

Sure, in some cases.  But in sex work, not so much, because others often happily volunteer.  The problem is the volunteers come with strings attached.  Men pay to avoid those strings, the big one being having to treat you like a partner.

Another fun article explaining what great guys are enthusiasts of paying for it.

1. We are professionals, not trained animals. We do not do “tricks” for dollar bills.

2. Ejaculating during a lap dance and then showing your friends the wet spot on your pants is not a badge of honor.

3. Asking if my boobs are mine is going to get you the answer: “Yes. They belong to me.”

4. Asking if my boobs are real is going to get you the answer: “Yes. They’re real expensive.” And, no, you can’t touch them to tell your wife how good they feel.

5. Please don’t blow on me. I may be “hot,” but your beer breath is not cooling me off and it certainly isn’t making me hot and bothered.

6. No matter how much “swagger” you think you have, you’re not getting my real number. No matter how “in love” with you I pretend I am, when your money’s gone…so am I. It’s a strip club. So, stop asking.

7. Stop yelling: “Show me the pink.”

8.  Please don’t wave money over the bachelor’s head and tell us to do “something special” because he’s the bachelor. That’s what the bachelor dance is for.

9. Stop wearing Adidas warm-up pants to the club. I don’t care if it feels more real because they’re thinner than jeans. It’s just creepy.

10. Don’t ask me my age. You’re either implying that I’m too young or old to be dancing, and I’m just going to answer: “How old do you want me to be?”

11. Don’t ask me how much I make, either. That’s between me and the IRS. Period.

12. Telling us to come back when we’re naked is not going to get us to come back at all.

13. A one-dollar tip, really? Can I at least get one dollar for each breast you had smashed in your face a second ago? Thanks.

I’d like to draw your attention, by the way, to the multiple references to wives and fiancees.

I spend some time reading the escort review boards and no men rhapsodize on the monetary exchange. What I read there is a desire to avoid the efforts and entanglements a conventional “civilian” encounter requires to get to the sex part.  You may find that distasteful or immoral and I would disagree with you less there than on the notion that dominance is the motivation.

Frankly, I think you may be blind to that motivation.  You’re looking at stories from guys who want to bypass the need to treat their sexual partner like an equal and want to be able to give a woman money to get exactly the sex they want with exactly the woman they want, and you don’t see that a huge part of the motivation is the ability to control the relationship and be able to dictate the terms of that relationship in a way that would never work in an actual, real-life relationship between equals.

When you hear “dominance” I think your mind is going in a BDSM direction, but the more precise word may be “control.”  You don’t pay someone for sex unless you want to control exactly how the evening goes, what she can and cannot say to you, and exactly what acts will be performed.  You hire a prostitute so you don’t have to deal with messy, uncontrollable things like emotions and expectations.

Also, the fact that men who like going to strip clubs apparently enjoy rubbing their wives’ noses in it. Such mensches, those guys.

What Mnem said.  Men go to prostitutes because they feel entitled to what women have no right to have, which is sexual encounters where you have to treat the other person with consideration. They feel entitled to it because our culture sexually objectifies women, by which I mean reduces them to objects.  For men who think sex means dumping on a woman without any exchange, actual relationships—-even one night stands—-with volunteers are frustrating.  Said women will often want there to be an exchange, to be treated with respect, not to be treated like this is a one-sided exchange.. 

I see men who defend johns as thinking there’s nothing wrong with male sexuality being constructed around the notion that women’s humanity is an obstacle to overcome, that seeing women basically as walking vaginas is “natural” and not a construct of the patriarchy. 

I disagree.  I think men can have really hot sex with women they see as full human beings.

Prostitutes exist because people want sex, typically with someone they don’t believe would be attracted to them without the influence of money.

Zif, I hate to tell ya, but prostitutes don’t have sex with their clients because they’re attracted to them.  They have sex with their clients because they get paid to fake attraction to them.  It’s all make-believe.  That hooker who tells you that you’re so hot and it’s never been like this for her before is lying to you so you’ll pay her more.

This is, I think, something that becomes a big problem for men who use prostitutes regularly:  they lose the ability to discern between a woman being actually attracted to them and a woman who’s faking attraction as part of her job.  It’s like spending all of your time watching porn movies and then being disappointed that the bank teller doesn’t take you in back and fuck you in the vault when you go to deposit your check—you’ve become divorced from how real life works and subsequently become easily disappointed by real life.

“Well, I never said that misogyny wasn’t widespread.  I’ve often argued that it is extremely widespread.  This particular flavor is more widespread than I would have thought.”

I think the age skew might be in play here.  Hiring prostitutes was fairly de rigeur back in the day while it’s considered fairly skeevy behavior now, and the survey looks like it asks for lifetime sexual experience.

From the linked survey:
“Among adults age 50 to 64, 22 percent have cheated on their partner, more than in any other age group. Twenty-six percent of men in this age group have paid for sex. And most of the small group of men who report very large numbers of sex partners fall into this age category.”

Older men who more than likely grew up with much more retrograde opinions of women (the 64-year-olds were 20 when the ‘60s started) look like they’re weighting the results a bit.

Next you’re going to suggest the stripper doesn’t really like them, Mnem.

Good point, preying.  One thing that feminism has dramatically changed is the madonna/whore complex, where men are encouraged to believe that sex on a more egalitarian level isn’t hot.  Men are encouraged more now to see women as multi-faceted, instead of putting them into the “those you fuck/those you marry” categories.  I also see the definition of “fucking” changing.  It used to be a verb to describe what men did to women, with all sorts of negative connotations.  Now it’s seen more as a collaborative effort—-reducing the demand for prostitution.

The curse of being a liberal, defined as being in favor of freedom to engage in consensual behavior of all sorts, is that people on the left and right of me accuse me of approving or apologizing for or defending the people who engage in that behavior.  It’s a constant annoyance but such is life.

BTW, Amanda, I agree that the unfuckable guy is a small percentage of the clientele, though I wouldn’t agree he’s a mythical character.  The crux of my disagreement with you on the topic is that I don’t think the majority of johns are motivated by the commercial nature of the transaction, though I don’t doubt some are.

I spend some time reading the escort review boards and no men rhapsodize on the monetary exchange. What I read there is a desire to avoid the efforts and entanglements a conventional “civilian” encounter requires to get to the sex part.  You may find that distasteful or immoral and I would disagree with you less there than on the notion that dominance is the motivation.
Comment #41: MiddleageLiberal on 09/09 at 09:40 AM

What you’re describing is dominance.  The ability to tell the other person exactly what to do and what not to do, when to arrive, when to go away.

My boss didn’t hire me simply because he wanted someone to be the boss of.

I disagree. Vehemently.

Saying “You could have gotten sex if you’d just put forward the time and the energy and maybe you showered more often” is, aside from being something of a slap in the face to those guys who feel like they’re doing all that and still getting turned down, still missing the point.

Maybe a slap in the face is what those guys need. Might wake them up a bit from their self-pitying whining. I know it worked for me.

#38 Yeah, a lot of these men can easily get sex… they’re married and want outside sex with a level of discretion that you can only buy.

#53 Others want to participate in acts that the general population of women, for the most part, will not do -  acts that are also common in pornography, some fetishes and taboos. That’s where a lot of the suboordination comes in. If you want to see a chick risk E. Coli in person badly enough, you’re going to pay. A lot of these guys do not share the same idea of fun as regular women, but they want to have “fun”, all the same. For instance, it’s fairly well known in the BDSM community that there’s a surplus of straight male subs, and the disproportionate level of fetishism among men has long been analyzed and pondered by social scientists.

#49 There’s also a supply/demand imbalance wrt: intergenerational sex that’s “solved” by commerce.

Also, many of the extremely “hard-up” men desperately want sex with women who are not their female counterparts. Other men want sex with women that they are attracted to, but do not want to deal with the social repercussions of publicly dating - transwomen, BBWs, women from different racial groups. Since “free” women would rather not deal with such a demeaning setup, the men end up “paying the prostitutes to leave.” Some guys want a five star reaction from a woman in bed without having five star skills to generate it. Others want a “10” to pretend that she loves them. There’s definitely entitlement in there… women who can’t get what or who they want sexually usually blame themselves and slink away into the shadows, they don’t create a multi-billion dollar black market around getting other humans to lick them.

Women aren’t interchangeable.  Finding the person you want and finding the person who wants you isn’t the same thing.

It’s pretty funny that the guy who’s defending buying sex from prostitutes is claiming to do it because women aren’t interchangeable.

Of course, what you’re really arguing is that men have the absolute right to have sex with any woman they find desirable, and if they can’t get a sufficiently attractive woman to sleep with them voluntarily, there’s nothing wrong with them going out and paying a woman who has to pretend to like them, because all they want is the fantasy that they’re really great guys that women just don’t appreciate.

To me, of course, this only makes the problem worse, because the guy then starts to wonder why all of those other women are demanding things like showering and dentistry when Crystal (not her real name) says she likes him just the way he is and all those other women are too picky to see what a catch he is, and that will be $200 please.

Those guys would be much better off spending that money on a good therapist to figure out why they have a hard time forming relationships rather than perpetuating the problem by paying women to fuck them who they would never, ever be able to get a date with in real life, and it would be cheaper, too.

Totally agree with #65. If you can’t get laid for free, you don’t deserve to. Remember Patrick Deuel, that 1000-lb man from Valentine, NE who was rushed to the hospital hours from death a few years ago? He was married. 700 lbs on his wedding day. Remember those conjoined twins from TLC who are attached at the head, and the one who sits in a chair is a country singer? The ambulatory sister is not a virgin. Yeah that’s right, a woman whose sister is attached to her forehead got laid.

Going into a pool of women and finding one you like and being turned down is disappointing and frustrating.  Going into a pool of prostitutes reduces the chance of rejection significantly.  Folks pay for sex - rather than trolling bars or dating sites - because they feel confident they’ll get what they want.  The “strings attached” to the non-prostitute may be a rock hard six pack or blonde hair or a house in the Hamptons or the ability to play the guitar or being under 30.  With the prostitute it is always cash.
Comment #63: Zifnab25 on 09/09 at 11:35 AM

But why should they be confident they’ll get what they want? 

What I don’t get is how so many women are the ones with sexual dysfunction, difficulty in getting aroused and getting off, yet it’s the men who get all this coddling about how they should get exactly what they want, every time, or it’s a tragedy.  If a woman wants something different from what she’s been dispensed by her partner, she has to go through this ridiculous dance of trying to be clear yet never implying he’s doing anything she doesn’t like or it’s a tragedy.

I suppose it’s because women can usually easily still have sex without interest while it’s harder for men to do.

Antigone, reverie, thanks.  As I said, studies are going to be hard to find, but anecdotal information is way better than nothing.  I thought there probably would be support of the anecdotal kind, and I do trust sex workers to share their experiences.

My complaint wasn’t “OMG unbelievable,” more like, sex workers get misrepresented all the time by people who are sympathetic but not knowledgeable, so I wanted to make sure we were getting a good perspective from them.

#59 I wouldn’t necessarily read that into it. I don’t know if that’s a generational effect or simply to do with the amount of time that’s transpired in a marriage/in a life by then. The longer the union, the more opportunities/the better the odds for lapses in fidelity there are. There’s no telling what the men in their 20s and 30s will have been up to when they themselves are 50-60, because that’s pretty much a person’s final tally. Also, as I said before, men that age, when they want women that are the age of their daughters or granddaughters, will often pay for their attentions. Younger men have wider unpaid access to and better odds with the age range of women that society says are the most desirable.

“Finding the person you want and finding the person who wants you isn’t the same thing.”  Then change your standards.  If a man can not have sex with the bombshell that he wants because he is ugly, or poor, or uncultured, or whatever means he should try looking for sex elsewhere.  If a woman wants, “a rock hard six pack or blonde hair or a house in the Hamptons or the ability to play the guitar or being under 30” out of her sexual partner, how is it any different than her finding a person she wants rather than simply a person that wants her?

But… men kind of do have a monopoly on paid sex. Male prostitutes are paid to service other men, even if they themselves are straight, because the demand for paid sex among women is just that low.

There have been trend stories about women who go to poor countries to have paid sex with desperate men, but notice the power disparities there.

Not to mention that the reason those stories are “news” is because it happens so rarely.  Guys, who aren’t family values braying politicians, who pay for sex aren’t newsworthy in the least. 

I have a friend who is a pro-dom who has had exactly one female client in her entire career.  She’s rather specialized, granted, but she also thinks it has to do with the fact that men feel entitled to receive the sort of sexual satisfaction they want and are willing to pay to get what they want.

In my experience (knew a lot of guys in the Army who visited prostitutes, never did myself), they all used them because they were horny and the women were available. It had nothing to do with dominance or subjugation as Amanda claims—just wanting sex really badly.

I believe that just comes from that she doesn’t understand that men often (usually) have a much, much, much harder time getting laid than women.

That’s the other side of the coin of all the men who don’t understand all the street harassment that women experience; it’s never happened to them, therefore it isn’t real. Amanda has the same blindness, just to men’s experiences.

I’ve read this from you before and it just seems a mental construction of yours based on your perspective as a relatively young, conventionally attractive, economically autonomous woman. You can have sex pretty much anytime you want with just about any unattached person you desire. Not so much with men.
Comment #41: MiddleageLiberal

Soooo… you’re saying a “relatively young, conventionally attractive, economically autonomous” man can’t “have sex pretty much anytime” they want?
Really? 

Perhaps the problem isn’t every one else. 
Just the perspective of a “relatively young, conventionally attractive, economically autonomous” man that couldn’t get laid because I used to be a flaming asshole.

It’s not like men have a monopoly on paid sex.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Damn, you’re funny.  Men also don’t have a monopoly on CEO positions, and yet 99 percent of CEOs are men.  But I guess that’s just because women aren’t smart enough or don’t work hard enough, right?

And yes, I don’t see anything wrong with trading money for sex with an attractive person if you don’t think your own charms are enough.  People have the right to pursue their dreams, even their fantasies, even fantasies that are unrealistic.

People have the right to be drug addicts or alcoholics.  That doesn’t mean I think they should be completely free from social criticism for it because, hey, they’re pursuing their fantasy.

You want to know why a man would frequent a brothel - other than because he’s a power hungry troll - and I gave you one.

Men who go to prostitutes are sad, pathetic creatures who are unable to relate to women as human beings.  You can make all of the excuses you want for them, but that’s the reality:  they don’t see women as human beings, but as objects that they can purchase, fuck, and send away.  The fact that you see absolutely nothing wrong with viewing women as objects for purchase and not human beings says a whole lot about you.

Anyone who gets paid to perform a task is subordinate to the one paying.

Eh, not quite.  Professionals like lawyers, doctors, and professors (I’ve been two of the three) really aren’t.  But the reason why is that the professional has vastly unequal bargaining power.  Is a layperson really going to run their own case, do surgery on themselves, or teach themselves differential equations?  Not likely.

On the other hand, roughly equal bargaining power means the two parties can enter into an enforceable contract which vastly decreases the possibility of subordination.

Unequal bargaining power leads to one person being very subordinate.  For example, if you are an unskilled laborer in a tough job market, you’re not in a good position to bargain on your own.  (Hence the equalizing power of unions.)

Prostitutes have very little bargaining power.  Their agreements - sex for payment - can’t be enforced in the courts, in most states prostitution is grey market work at best so may subject the prostitute to criminal charges, and prostitutes are pariahs as far as society is concerned.  Add in trafficking, pimps, and the like and prostitution becomes one of the most abusive jobs.

I’m all for a legal prostitution trade - I think the value of wiping out the black market sex trade outweighs the cost.  But I think any sort of legalized prostitution system would have to be built from the ground up in a way that ensured prostitutes had at least equal bargaining power with their clients.  (Note: I am not a fan of the Nevada system.)

“I believe that just comes from that she doesn’t understand that men often (usually) have a much, much, much harder time getting laid than women.”

Damn those roving hordes of irresistible lesbians, occupying all those otherwise-straight women’s free time and sexual energy and making it so ridiculously difficult for straight men to score!

I used to be one of those fools who, out of wishful thinking, would argue that johns aren’t that bad.  And then Katha Pollitt asked me point blank if I would date a man who visited prostitutes. 

That stuck with me.  Finally, I realized I was being intellectually dishonest.  Deep down inside, I did believe men who pay women for sex were scum.  It was unfair of me to think they were good enough for other women but not for me.  I was suggesting men are worth more than women by defending them.  I felt like a bad person for suggesting so.

Anyway, if one sex is really disempowered to the other on the dating “market”, I would expect the needier sex to:

*Work out more
*Spend more money on clothes and toiletries
*Spend more time getting ready
*Worry more about diet
*Spend more on facials and haircuts
*Spend more on dating advice guides
*Invest more emotionally in relationships
*Provide more free labor like housework in relationships

By this measure—-who puts more work into getting laid—-women are clearly the people who are disempowered.  Men whose reaction to having to put forward even the slightest effort to be dateable is, “Fuck it, I’ll just pay someone”.  Yeah, they strike me as entitled pieces of shit.

By the way, how unsurprising is it that the same guys who pull the Nice Guy® whine defend johns?  Anything is preferable, it seems, to letting go of the idea that you’re entitled to instant access to pussy, and have to think in terms of mutuality.

#79 Also, it’s just untrue. There are many women within this category who have been sexually rejected by men before. By pulling that old canard out, MiddleAgedLiberal erases their experience, as well as that of men who are discerning when it comes to sex partners. Also, that meme discourages women from initiating encounters, because the conclusion is that if you get repeatedly rejected, it’s not that it’s a normal part of life/the sex-seeking process for initiators, it means that you must be a troll, because that doesn’t happen to attractive women.

The notion that “women” have an easier time getting laid than men is whipped out by men who don’t include women that are not conventionally attractive in their definition of “women”.  I think if the men doing this whining lowered their standards to the point where they would date someone their same age, same BMI, same level of physical attractiveness, and with a similar personality in terms of attractiveness, they would find that it’s not so hard at all.

By the way, I have to point out that most surveys of dating sites show that men are much more restrictive in terms of weight and age when it comes to who they’ll date.

I’ll be upfront, I’ve never paid for sex or known anyone who’d claimed to and I’m hardly an expert. But I am sure of this: a high proportion of the guys who visit prostitutes are scumbags, but that’s mostly because the underground nature of prostitution and the likelihood of the person in question being an abuse or trafficking victim is so high. I have no doubt whatsoever that were prostitution legalised, destigmatised unionised and set up in comfortable yet discrete high street surroundings far more people of both sexes* would participate and abuse would be near zero.

I’m sure many here would argue that this arrangement would lead to more abuse outside by somehow causing men to somehow feel they’re entitled to treatment of this sort by ALL women, as if they’d suddenly forgot they’d just had to pay for this service, but I’m going to give men enough credit in this instance to believe they’re capable of separating the two. This whole idea stems from the idea of paying for sex being ostensibly about control an of course for some people it is - in fact it’s far more likely for people who’ve traditionally had trouble finding willing partners and thus hold a grudge - but for many it really is about being horny and wanting casual sex without taking the time to chat someone up. I think the preponderance of gay cruising areas in most major cities is glaring evidence in favour of this.

Also, if guys wanted to rectify the casual sex imbalance, they’d try to do something about the disproportionate levels of danger, stigma and blame that women who go home with random men for free are subjected to, instead of passing that same danger, stigma and blame onto women who go home with random men despite the aforementioned factors because their need for food, shelter, transportation, childcare, and possibly drugs is stronger than the fear.

#88 But if it is about wanting casual sex in the vast majority of cases, why do prostitutes get beaten, raped and killed by clients so often?

Dittoing Amanda #83, #86, and #87—has anyone ever heard any serious, sympathetic, constructive mass-culture advice for women who want sex with men and have trouble getting it ... I mean, anything comparable to the empathy expressed for sad unfuckable johns?  All I’ve ever noticed is “Work harder at it, lady, by doing some or all of those things that Amanda listed in #83.  You’re obviously not desirable enough to deserve sexual satisfaction.  You need to change.”

I really, genuinely wonder why women don’t pay for sex. You always here the “women can get laid whenever blah blah blah” but, in my experience, women are much more sensitive to the difference between good sex and bad sex. Men seem to come even in the most banal sexual experiences, where women often need to be with a guy who is skilled/actually cares if a woman comes. Furthermore, BJs are considered totally vanilla while it seems like eating pussy is this weird kink which very few guys will indulge.

Furthermore, women can’t just go home with any old guy. A woman always has to worry about whether any particular guy will end up raping/stalking/harming her. In my own, albeit limited, experience, I have tried the drunken hookup thing and always seem to end up with guys that are just way way too rough and won’t listen to what I want. While I know that most guys are great people, I have been hurt enough that I am, quite frankly, too afraid to go home with any guy that I don’t have some sort of rapport with. I am also a tall, athletic girl, so I imagine it is much worse for more average-sized ladies. So the whole “women get laid whenever they want” thing is total BS.

There is also the weird environment around women and sexiness. On the one hand, it seems to be conventional wisdom that if a hole exist, some dude will stick his dick in it. On the other hand, cultural messages suggest that if women aren’t tall (but not too tall), thin, young, and white with Northern European facial features, she is too ugly to even be acknowledged as existing. I am not sure which one is true, but it definitely fucks with women’s self-esteem, which in turn is a huge obstacle to getting laid and enjoying sex.

What I don’t understand is that there are enough women with financial independence and there should be a demand for hot guys who will eat pussy and have financial incentive not to hurt you and to tell you that you are beautiful and not whine about the fucking condom to create demand for hetero-male prostitution. Yet didn’t that one and only stud ranch in NV go bust? Why aren’t women paying for good sex if it is simply about a demand being met.

Amanda at #86 is exactly right—non-conventionally attractive women don’t even get to count as women at all.

quoderat,

“I believe that just comes from that she doesn’t understand that men often (usually) have a much, much, much harder time getting laid than women.”

Do the fucking math!  There are slightly *fewer* men in the population than women.  Unless you’re arguing that there are way more lesbians than gay dudes (the roving lesbians described above), what the fuck are you talking about?  And if you are talking about getting laid and *climaxing* dudes win hands down.  Seriously.  Think.  Think. 

And the problem with horny dudes visiting prostitutes because they are horny is they are treating another person as a way to satisfy that sexual urge, without considering that other person’s personhood/needs.  Get it?  Women have sexual urges too, but I for one don’t believe that wanting sex means that I can treat a man like a human dildo, instead of like another person who wants to negotiate what sort of sex we’ll be having, and in the context of what (strangers?  friends with benefits?  short-term lovers?  long-term lovers?).  Does this mean I sometimes get less sex than I would if I were willing to lie to and manipulate men, or involve myself with men who I knew were on a different page?  Abso-damn-lutely.  And I don’t think it makes me a saint.  That kind of interaction wouldn’t turn me on anyways, but all the same.

Zifnab,

I feel like you’re arguing in good faith, but really missing the point.  The fact is that we live in a social structure where money can be a substitute for doing the things necessary to win over another person.  That’s what the whole fantasy thing is about.  Yes, usually it is fine to dream the impossible dream or whatever, but once involving another human being treating them like a sex toy and acting as though this is *a replacement for* a mutual interaction is kind of gross.  It is hiring someone to be a combination sexual play actor and sex toy—and guess what—most of what they do is not going to get them off and is not designed to get them off.  So it is a very nasty lopsided relationship.

Dittoing Amanda #83, #86, and #87—has anyone ever heard any serious, sympathetic, constructive mass-culture advice for women who want sex with men and have trouble getting it ... I mean, anything comparable to the empathy expressed for sad unfuckable johns?  All I’ve ever noticed is “Work harder at it, lady, by doing some or all of those things that Amanda listed in #83.  You’re obviously not desirable enough to deserve sexual satisfaction.  You need to change.”
Comment #91: Unree on 09/09 at 02:08 PM

I haven’t really seen any such advice, because the expectation of women looking for a partner is that they are looking for an emotional relationship, not a sexual one.  The advice Amanda listed was all advice for a woman to attract a man by offering the kind of sexual relationship *he* wants, not advice on finding someone who will care about the kind of sexual relationship *she* wants.

#88—You may be right, I don’t know. But currently in the Netherlands where prostitution is legal, they have a huge problem with human trafficking because it is easier for pimps to put up a legitimate facade. I think the reason that legalization didn’t end trafficking in the Netherlands is because there is a huge demand for powerless victims and legal, empowered prostitutes can always refuse your money if you are threatening where as an immigrant sex slave doesn’t have that power. It might be that legalization would ultimately reduce the demand for sex slaves, or it could be that legalization will just encourage respectable-ish guys who just want to get laid to pay for legal sex while the scumbag type johns are given more of a cover to exploit desperate women. I honestly don’t know, but it is a point that should be kept in mind and further examined.

I read a better article for a class that I can’t find online, but here is the link on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands#Human_trafficking

“I think men can have really hot sex with women they see as full human beings.”

I KNOW for a fact that they can. And do!

Also, Amanda, that article about “reasons your exotic dancer hates you”... the comments there were super scary. Yikes!

@95—Well, yeah, oldfeminist.  I was just contrasting the response to sad, unfulfilled desire, be it emotional or sexual:

  Message to lonely dudes:  You deserve to have your needs fulfilled.  Don’t change a thing; you’re fine the way you are.  Go ahead and buy pussy that meets your standards.

  Message to lonely women: You don’t deserve to have your needs fulfilled.  You must earn your satisfaction by complying with all sorts of costly demands.  Your not getting your needs met means you are undesirable and unworthy.  You’re ugly and should loathe yourself.

A lot of dating advice for women with this problem simultaneously says lower your standards and become a more attractive partner. At least the “Seduction Community” says “with our cheat codes for the pussy, you can get the type of women you’ve always fapped to!” Lol… the advice women pay for says “trash your unreasonable fantasies, become more physically attractive, work hard on your personality to get the attention of a guy that would’ve been an equitable match for you before the entire process started, back when you couldn’t get laid”

I think everyone deserves to have their needs fulfilled.

See, this is just like the street harassment issue. Women just don’t understand, just as most men don’t understand the harassment one.

Funny, because it’s almost an exactly identical misunderstanding.

Thanks alysia, I did go ahead and read that link (if it was the right one) and the facts were sobering. If prostitution was to be legalised, I think it would have to be done with a strict licensing policy, backed up by regular spot checks for it to be workable. Nevertheless, as many people have spelled out here, people of both sexes have needs, be it personally or sexually based which perhaps can’t be met at all easily, and the idea that there might be a paid professional willing to service these needs as an outlet can’t be a bad thing.

No, quoderat, we do understand, because women also have sexual needs that sometimes don’t get met, or if they do not meet the minimum qualifications for conventional attractiveness, never get met.

Guys aren’t the only ones who’d like to get laid and can’t. 

I promise. 

Fer real and everything.

Thus showing, really, that you don’t understand.

“Guys aren’t the only ones who’d like to get laid and can’t.”

But it’s tremendously more painful for guys.  Or something?  I’m not really sure where this is going.

quoderat, what exactly are the women in this discussion incapable of understanding?

Yeah, I’m a little fuzzy on what we’re not getting, too.

We’re so incapable of understanding, he doesn’t bother to refute our points, or explain the depth of our misunderstanding.

Because then, we might actually have a conversation where we learned something, or where he learned something.  Heaven forfend.

Hey, quoderat, maybe you should explain to the men on this board.  Who aren’t afflicted with ladybrain.  Also, I’ve never dated a guy who doesn’t understand that street harassment sucks.  Some are shocked by the extent of it, but none of them think getting yelled at on the street is something they would enjoy.

I really, genuinely wonder why women don’t pay for sex. You always here the “women can get laid whenever blah blah blah” but, in my experience, women are much more sensitive to the difference between good sex and bad sex. Men seem to come even in the most banal sexual experiences, where women often need to be with a guy who is skilled/actually cares if a woman comes.

If being a male prostitute is a much harder skill than being a female prostitute, then it’s not surprising that women are in a worse position when it comes to paying for sex.  Maybe they’d have to pay more, or whatnot?  (And certainly some do; though I’ve never seen a number?) 

Furthermore, BJs are considered totally vanilla while it seems like eating pussy is this weird kink which very few guys will indulge.

I’m not sure what your cultural context is (and age is maybe extremely important?), but this is a really weird statement to me.  Studies I’ve seen suggest it’s more lopsided in one-night-stands than serious relationships, but whether that’s reflective of the social situation, or the kind of guys who’re having one night stands, I don’t know.  (Neither would surprise me.)  In my own social circle where it might be discussed (basically, nonreligious men under 30), only one man has ever expressed anything negative about eating pussy, and he was put in line pretty fast with homophobic slurs (and a Seinfeld-esque “not that there’s anything wrong with that.”)

The distinction between “sex” and “good sex” is probably really at the heart of the “women can have sex whenever they want”.  What studies I’ve seen suggest that one-offs aren’t as good as relationships, (for either gender, but the disparity for women is much higher.) and men’re probably far more encouraged to take bad sex over no sex than women are.  (It really wouldn’t occur to me to even try ad draw such a distinction if women weren’t bringing it up first.)

Along with some discounting of how much outside our socially prescribed roles we’d have to go to get it.  If I look at my peer group (and I’ll take female graduate students in my department, to hopefully get a representative sample.), I’d probably have sex with any of them if they asked (yes, I’m easy.)  But I haven’t (and won’t) suggest as much to any of them.  (But have spent a half-hour subway ride trying to imply to one that I wasn’t trying to hit on her, but in a way that she’d only pick up on if she’d thought I had been.  I’m sure it was a creepy disaster, given how intoxicated I was.)  The guys who’re asking the most are probably also the least interested in what they want, so pursuing hook-ups or casual relationships in the more stereotypically female mode is likely to result in worse partners.  (At least, it seems like there should be a strong bias here.)

Rhetorical question (because I know why), Why is it that everyone thinks women don’t suffer just like men do if the people they want don’t want them back?  Why is it that people seem to think that women don’t crave sex just like men do?  Why is it that men seem to not get that being rejected hurts like a mother fucker regardless of which gender you are or which gender has rejected you? 

Seriously, dude.  Guys do not have the market cornered on suffering, loneliness and horny.  You really don’t.

GGR,

If this were jezebel, I would so have hearted you for that.  Thank you.

-Izzy

yeah, stubborn. I am not sure what a good solution should be or if there is one. and I definitely wasn’t trying to be a prude or anything; its just that eliminating trafficking isn’t going to be as simple as “legalize it.” I wish we had the cultural maturity to really think about the problem in terms of legalization, regulation, and punishment for the real bad guys rather than just a “sex is an entitlement” “sex is amoral” breakdown. It is also really damning evidence that part of the demand for prostitution is that some men want to treat women (or other men) as commodities. We have to accept that fact if we are really going to help the people trapped in the sex trade.

Brian, my peer group up until a few months ago was college students, so maybe men grow out of it? I was also in a metropolitan area where women significantly outnumber men, so maybe men their could just afford to be more picky or maybe I have just had terrible luck—but it still seems odd to me that their are so few women willing to pay for sex and so many men.

Women are actually more likely to be sexually unsatisfied. http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/20061101/happier-with-sex-life-men-women so my point still stands that if prostitution is about sexual satisfaction, women should be the ones trolling craigslist.

@Brian, yeah, pure anecdata here but when I was single and cutting a swath through the horny population of Seattle, I found PLENTY of guys who expected blow jobs, but acted like pussy was kryptonite and their tongue was Superman.  Enough so it became one of my screening criteria, because the question, “Will you go down on me?” was as effective an asshole detection device as I’ve ever found. 

Many of my other female friends ran into the same problem. 

Also, I don’t know that the supposed competence levels for male pros really matters in as much as we still live in a society where women aren’t supposed to even WANT sex, let alone want competent sex.  How many variations of “Just close your eyes and think of England,” has the female populace received in lieu of actual sexual advice?  Wifely duties, all the urging to provide children… 

@Ismone - Awww, thanks!

What y’all ladies fail to understand is that, when quoderat says ‘everyone’, what he means is men, who are the only people who really count.

Either that, or not getting laid is exactly the same as getting catcalled on the street, hollered at from/followed down the sidewalk by creepfuck guys in cars, et cetera and so on. That doesn’t make any fucking sense, though, so I’m forced to assume my original surmise is accurate.

“Why is it that everyone thinks women don’t suffer just like men do if the people they want don’t want them back?”

Because women just move on to the next in an endless supply of interchangeable men who will of course say yes because it’s either that or die alone in the Deserted Wasteland of Never Being Laid That Is Being a Dude.  Duh.

Because a wallet’s a wallet, right?

I would seriously like to put a stake through the “All women are golddiggers” narrative. 

(I do know you’re joking, preying mantis, just to make sure, since tone doesn’t always come across well through text.)

when I was single and cutting a swath through the horny population of Seattle, I found PLENTY of guys who expected blow jobs, but acted like pussy was kryptonite and their tongue was Superman.

First of all, best analogy ever.

Second, it’s worth noting that there are supposedly more single men in Seattle than single women, which you would think would lead “desperate” men to be better lovers to entice women to sleep with them.

For my part, as a single woman living in Seattle, it’s been my experience that guys will make a very half-hearted (one might even suspect deliberately incompetent) attempt at cunnilingus.  So I guess that’s progress?

If we don’t buy that men who visit prostitutes are doing so because they’re super hard up (and while I’m inclined to believe at least some are, none of the men who’re super hard up have visited prostitutes, and none of the men I’ve known who’ve visited prostitutes have been remotely hard up.  (In fact, they probably had the most non-prostitute partners among men I’ve known.  So I can’t push it.) then we shouldn’t expect women who’re hard up to do so very much either, especially noting that as GeekGirlsRule has suggested, there’s the additional barriers of having to admit you want sex, having to actively pursue it, et cetera, that are usually counter-indicated in women’s social programming guides.  The internet suggests to me that ~1% of women have ever paid for sex, and even though there’s a slightly bigger dispersion among men in the number of sex partners, that probably means that no more than ~2% of men visit prostitutes because it’s the only way they can figure out to have sex.  The other ~10% are there for some other reason(s).

@GeekGirlsRule - hey, I was only going from worthless anecdata as well.  But what I’ve seen suggests that both are pretty common in long-term relationships, but there’s a fairly large disparity between fellatio and cunnilingus in one night stands.  I’m inclined to believe it reflects more on the men who have one night stands than the nature of one nights stands, but that’s just a wild guess, even worse than anecdata!  I’m not generally inclined to think that “men who do X” are otherwise a representative sample of men, which class-type analysis tends to assume, but I’m probably pretty alone on that.

Minor clarification: the statement “there’s a whole world of prostitutes that aren’t trafficked in the classic sense of the term, but are still being basically held as slaves by their pimps” doesn’t make much sense.  People who are being basically held as slaves by their pimps are trafficked. 

From the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000: “The term ‘‘sex trafficking’’ means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.”

And “the term ‘‘severe forms of trafficking in persons’’ means—(A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age;”

So all minors recruited, harbored, transported, provided, or obtained for the purposes of commercial sex are trafficked.  And all adults induced to perform sex acts by force, fraud, or coercion are trafficked.  They don’t have to be brought across international borders or even state borders.  Trafficking for both sex and labor (a distinction made by the law that I’m not altogether sure is valid) is certainly the “major source of modern day slavery in the U.S.,” unless you have a definition of slavery that encompasses more than literal slavery (which you very well might, but that’s another whole conversation).

To the idiot men who want to know what the poor menz are supposed to do if they can’t get laid, I always say, Why can’t they just do what women who can’t get laid do? Why are men somehow more special that they NEED sex, on demand?

@keshmeshi I dunno, I’ve been with a number of guys who were super enthusiastic, but not terribly good at it.  Damn you, Sam Kinison. 

But yeah, getting guys to even give it a try is progress of a sort, I think.

black strippers make less money than white strippers, because those hard up men you feel so much sympathy for feel like they can happily pass over sexual stimulation from black women

Another blow to the “men will fuck any woman/attractive women can have casual sex with any single man” idea - many unattached American* men would totally refuse a night with Naomi Campbell (in an alternate universe, where she’s not batshit) because she looks unambiguously black, despite the fact that she’s made millions from her high percentile human attractiveness level, as (strictly) defined and determined by our society. Male NSA ads also regularly have racial criteria, even when you can tell that the guy’s desperate (multiple postings over a fairly short time period expressing increasing exasperation with “the process” of finding a sex partner).

*This is apparently a phenomenon that’s ubiquity is unique to Anglophone North America.

Because a wallet’s a wallet, right?

I would seriously like to put a stake through the “All women are golddiggers” narrative.

Lots of anecdotes about men getting burned by them from what I overheard from the attorneys/bankers at the offices I worked along and from MSM reports/comments like the article below keep that narrative going strong:

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110604/how-debt-can-destroy-a-budding-relationship

What’s more insidious about this is there are plenty of dudes who are just as bad or worse about this….such as the group of loser dudes at one Boston area campus who discussed plans to “successfully date” and marry “rich girls” from Wellesley, Harvard, Tufts, etc so they can be “set for life”. 

As many people have pointed out before me, every group has its assholes. 

This means neither that all women are gold-diggers any more than it means all men are gold-diggers. 

It just means that both groups have assholes in them.

FWIW, here’s what someone who has studied the subject says about johns:

The unexpected results, said Shively and Martin Monto, a University of Oregon sociologist who studies prostitutes and their clients, offer a window into the minds of the roughly 20% of American men who researchers believe will pay for sex sometime in their lives. The numbers from San Francisco and San Diego suggest that far from being hardened deviants, most johns—especially those who have had few encounters with hookers—are surprisingly malleable creatures susceptible to the full-frontal assault of john school.

“Most of these guys fall into one of three basic categories: Sad sacks who are looking for a girlfriend-like experience; those who don’t want to deal with the emotional component of a relationship and just want the sex; and thrill seekers. Only a very small number are actual
sociopaths,” Shively said. “A lot of the themes in the classes appeal to these guys’ sense of empathy and self-preservation.”

There have been some reasonable discussions, but there has also been this:
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2010_09_05_archive.html#6361378893845871993
She was also the one who said that any woman into BDSM was not a feminist, and could not be a feminist. Comment #1: quoderat on 09/08 at 06:11 PM

Echidne, I was talking about Suzie, not you—sorry for any confusion. Linking to your posts directly does not work correctly in most browsers.
Comment #36: quoderat on 09/09 at 02:43 AM

Quoderat, I never said a woman into BDSM could not be a feminist. Please be more careful with your facts.
Suzie

#126 But… most women don’t want a dude’s face in their privates that’s thinking about how he’ll finally be able to pay his phone bill when he finally gets done with them. They want people to have perform sex acts on them primarily out of mutual attraction - that’s part of the turn on. Seeing people as sexual vending machines is kind of weird.

(continued)

choosing among even just a dozen girls is still too hard, so we create an Excel worksheet, and tabulate the gals and their most interesting traits: is she tall? does she charge the standard market rate (100 EUR/30 min for an incall)? more? less? does she kiss? french-kiss? does she do anal? does she have reviews? favorable reviews? well, sorry babbies, but this is my list of interesting traits, plus the site’s profile template doesn’t include “indie rock bands namedropped/hour”, “favorite internet meme” or “self-righteous and pissy about…” fields. columns are booleans: we put 0 or 1, with 1 meaning the trait is desirable to us. then, we add a “weighed worth” column, where we add up the traits, weighed (multiplied) by priority (a power of two - 1 for the lowest priority, 2 for the next-to-lowest, 4, 8 and so on). my highest priority is reviews, so I give the “reviews” column the highest score; next comes kissing; then rate; and so on. finally, we sort the table by the “weighed worth” column, descending, and work our way to the bottom (did you make the “name” field a clickable link? of course not, you’re a goddamn babby). one by one, we double-check if the profile is active and we read the reviews. if there’s no review, we check the forums. if still no review found, we delete her: girls come and go, they may swap their phone numbers with new girls, or put up fake photos, or be involved with shady people, or they just may be plain unreliable, or bad at it. then, you google her phone number, and see if she has another profile elsewhere, and compare it with her profile on Escort Forum. you sure like repeating to yourselves that it’s an underground market, but you have no idea what it means in practice, do you?

we should now have a list of about ten girls or so, double- and triple-cross-checked with a variety of sources, and we’re pretty confident in our ability to have a good time with a quality piece of ass (we? we who? not you big fat thirty-something obsessed with fairies and eyeliner, that’s for sure). cave-dwellers need not apply, we are going to place phone calls now, and a lot of them. don’t send an SMS, nor call with a hidden caller id: a lot of people just like calling and you are not one of them (are you?), so prove it by at least pretending you’re taking some risks. they don’t listen to voicemail, don’t bother. they don’t answer during performances (good ones don’t. if you hear background grunting, politely excuse yourself). they don’t discuss rates and services on the phone, as most of them have lives. be persistent, it can be very hard to get a hold of the best ones (because you only want the best ones, don’t you? if you even knew what that meant). finally, you’ll get to talk to her: be polite, don’t waste her time, and agree on a date and time. she’ll give you an address: it’s fake, it’s across the street so she can look at you first, from the window. be there at the agreed date and time, and wait for the call or SMS that tells you the right address (surely you are not the kind of guy who she’d turn down?). let a close friend know where you are, and have him call you back in a hour or two. hold onto your concealed pepper spray can and step through the open door (she’ll be standing there waiting for you). congratulations! you are about to have sex!

this is how it’s done in the new millennium. never pick up a “roadie”, that’s sleazy and dangerous (unless she’s a trans girl with her own - expensive - car): go web 2.0

(continues)

(this is actually the first part… this site sucks)

nothing like a bunch of candy-ass liberals and asexual lesbians to discuss the finer points of female prostitution. quick, you, yes, you, the one who’s feeling offended, stop everything you’re doing, and buy a sexual performance within the next 30 minutes. what? you can’t? of course you can’t, you’re a big sheltered babby

without further ado, here’s how it’s done. first, you need the motivation. you don’t have it, because you’re a big ol first world babby who never knew want or need. or because you’re a rottweiler-breeding-sexual lesbian, an overweight nerd or some other kind of functional asexual. or maybe you’re the sexy, maybe a little emo, kind of asexual. rawr. in any case, you don’t understand buying sex, so give it up. when your coworkers who are sex freaks talk about prostitutes you cover your ears lest your precious little self be harmed by the big scary words. well, you really should have listened, because it’s fascinating

believing, in this time and age, that buying sex is scary and sleazy is a little like believing a gunshot can make a car explode: totally false in practice, and exposes you as a delicate little babby, which is fine as long as you live among delicate little babbies like you, but doesn’t make you any less than a delicate little babby. when, earlier this year, I realized that going down the path of cross-dressing meant a serious risk of having sex with someone, I found myself wondering which option was the least immoral between naturally discovering the joys of sex and shared pleasure at the ripe old age of 28 with a caring, loving, unfortunate scapegoat whose trouble I’d repay with awkwardness, shame and self-doubt and who I’d never want to see or speak to ever again lest I remove my eyeballs with my pinkies, or just paying some beyotch to do it like rabbits. right. about three milliseconds of wondering later, I was browsing through Escort Forum. liberal babbies ignore this kind of sites until it’s time to launch a crusade against one on baseless accusations, but the idea is so simple even they could use it: you browse a catalog of prostitutes, pick your favorite, hook up, and then write a review, or discuss it with the nice people in the forum (protip: the forum sucks and it’s full of horrible people). just like amazon

now that you are on Escort Forum, well, you look around. you click on your city name, and browse through the list. I live in Milan, the Italian, no, European city with the highest density of prostitutes/inhabitants, so even this limited list (only a small minority of professionals and agencies advertises on Escort Forum) is pretty daunting. now, a babby like you might panic and pick the first, or hottest girl. statistics say you are a racist, so you picked a fair-skinned one: a bad choice, probably eastern-European, notoriously cold and professional. what you should really do is something we non-babbies call “data mining”. don’t swoon just yet. first, we’ll narrow down the field of search with a little googling; we google for “site:escortforum.net intitle:“milano accompagnatrici” inurl:accompagnatrici”, and this gives us about 650 results: way too many (the site says about 200 escorts work in Milan, so Google is probably including inactive profiles and some duplicates), but it’s a start. I then modify the query adding the parameters I’m looking for (e.g. I want her as tall or taller than me: I add ““170 cm” “171 cm” “172 cm” ...etc” to the query), do some browsing, a little pruning, and I end up with a list of about a dozen interesting profiles

(continues in the post above, concludes in the post below)

(continued)

since you are itching so much to know, the experience was a disaster (it turns out it’s actually more comfortable for a prostitute if you are the typical john everyone despises, i.e. married misogynist in love with his own cock. attractive well-groomed 28-year-old virgin soon-to-be-transvestite is a little too much to handle for a simple Brazilian girl - not that I blame her, but this is going to murder her score in my review). at least, it was all over quickly and neatly. sometimes I really can’t understand why you’d subject a person you supposedly care about to your neuroses and pettiness, and call this “healthy” with a straight face, but then I remember you’re privileged inner-city babbies who don’t find anything wrong in being adults who use the word “awesome”, and everything feels right again

(end)

Zifnab—the point of all those arguments is that they disprove the notion that prostitution simply exist because men desire more sex than they can get for free when 1) men aren’t willing to sleep with just anyone and 2) women who are hard up sad sacks don’t seek prostitutes and nearly the same rate that men do—even though women are just as often dissatisfied with their sex lives. This indicates that men feel entitled to treat sex as a commodity when women don’t, ergo the way prostitution exists is grounded in sexism.

The thing that confuses me about the “of course the prostitute/stripper likes me” dudes is that there are so many of them. 

When it comes to any other job that involves working with customers, there is certainly a tendency of people to think “well, I am the special snowflake that makes the day of the Starbucks/Best Buy employee,” but to recognize that most customers are in fact assholes and employees know it.

The percentage of people arguing that employees secretly love their business seems to be incredibly high when those employees are sex workers and a normal level of “it’s all about me” when those employees work in other fields.

@Brian

If being a male prostitute is a much harder skill than being a female prostitute, then it’s not surprising that women are in a worse position when it comes to paying for sex.

This seems to ignore the primarily male customer base for male prostitution.  I assume you mean that providing PIV sex for money would be more difficult for men then women, which I am not sure is any more true, but is at least more plausible.

Well, the chap ranting at Tolstoy length about how ugly we all are has certainly convinced me of your argument, Zif. His sad tale truly tugs at my heartstrings. Who are we, indeed, to deny him his totally non spite-addled nor misogynistic dream?

It doesn’t make you Hitler or Satan, Zifnab, it just makes you a run-of-the-mill asshole. It doesn’t make you special.

Wow, Zif, who’s creating Straw Men?  Pot, Kettle, Bitch?

Way to miss the point entirely. All of them.  Repeatedly.

“Thirdly, why is it when someone wants a car and buys it, no one throws “Why do you feel ENTITLED to a car, asshole?” in the person’s face.  When someone wants a cheesecake and buys it, no one throws “I want a cheesecake too, but I bake one from scratch with my own two hands, you evil bastard” in the person’s face.  But if someone wants a BJ - from a licensed BJ distributor - this makes him whatever the misogynist version of Hitler is?  That’s my rhetorical question.”

Um, two of those are things and one of them is access to another human being’s body?  Full disclosure: I always did suck at those “Spot the differences” puzzles.

Ok, calmer me:  Yes, Zifnab, that is how you saw sex because that’s how society portrays sex.  That is not, however, the reality of sex. 

I’m very pro-legalization of prostitution for many reasons (health screening, getting rid of pimps, not demonizing poor women, etc…)And yeah, I think it would be nice if everyone felt like it was ok to feel sexual desire, and enjoy sexual desire. 

However, right now women frequently DON’T feel like they can acceptably feel or act on desire.  Hell, in some states vibrators are still legally problematic, let alone hiring someone to fulfill those desires for them.

Zifnab - Also, it’s not a “linchpin”, it’s an anecdote. In conversations about sexual predilections/habits and shadow economies, anecdotes will be a fairly prominent fount of data, because studies like this are still difficult to do and find.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MensHealth/study-attempts-find-men-pay-sex/story?id=9663694

41% of johns say that they go to prostitutes to satisfy immediate sexual urges.
21% go to prostitutes because they want women with physical racial and sexual stereotypes such as submissiveness
20% go to prostitutes because of dissatisfaction with a current relationship
15% go because of the absence of committment or emotional connection
3% go due to drunkeness or sexual addiction

At least we finally have an answer to the age-old question “How is babby formed?”

Thanks to yay anarchy, we know that babby is created as a result of 1) living in the first world and 2) never knowing need or want.

Um, no one mentioned rape by default, at least while I was paying attention.

Ok, have we explained the concept of patriarchy here before?  I’m reasonably sure we have.  So, I’m not going to do it again.

Zif, you continue to astound me.

So, list of things that are not sexist: Computer Science programs, football/sports, cigar culture, prostitution.

List of things that are all the same (and totally not sexist): cheesecake, vaginas, cars.

Anything I am missing, Zifnab25?

Because women don’t act like men, women don’t have the same feelings and desires as men.  Clearly, social construction and the threat of sexual assault doesn’t alter women’s behavior.  Good to know, Zifnab.

I don’t get everything I want, if everything I want involves disrespecting other human beings.  (That also makes me not want it, but it sure as hell makes it something I’m not entitled to.)  I explained myself quite well in response to you, but instead of answering actual arguments and engaging, you’d rather label and dismiss.  Like quoderat.  Which is really disrespectful.  And which is not how I treat you.

I don’t get how my explanation that it is treating a human as a sex toy and not caring that they are a person, also capable of pleasure, is so hard to grasp.

Gods, I hate my addiction to internet arguing. 

Ok, while football (either form) is not in and of itself sexist, it’s just a game and both men and women can play it, the CULTURE surrounding both versions of football, for the most part, IS SEXIST.  Only men are allowed to play professionally, while women get to stand on the sidelines and be PRETTY!  If they’re pretty enough.  Also painting your chest for a football game is something only guys really get to do because of sexist public decency laws that state that boy nipples are fine, but girl nipples are dirty.

Computer science is not sexist.  It is a field of study.  However, the CULTURE surrounding it which is part of society that says girls suck at math, ergo also at computer programming, and says that computer programmers are socially retrograde nerds who are (default) male, IS sexist.

Now cigar culture IS getting less sexist.  There are actually plenty of women who enjoy cigars now, and that population is growing. 

And maybe if Nice Guys TM were actually up front enough TO beg us for nookie, we wouldn’t have the problems with them we have.  But they don’t BEG US FOR NOOKIE, they DEMAND IT OF US AS THEIR RIGHT FOR PUTTING UP WITH OUR SUBSTANDARD FEMALE SHIT!!!!!!

Sorry, button pushed.

#129-131 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll-lia-FEIY

#132 Because cheesecakes and cars are objects, so unless you steal them, it’s morally acceptable/neutral - and in many cases encouraged - to feel entitlement to them. You *could* substitute a legal, non-vital* body service provided by humans like pedicures, hair washing, tattooing, waxing, back massaging, or something - then it would make something akin to some sense.

*meaning outside of medicine, where people are also paid to routinely risk contamination through blood-borne illness and put their hands on the bodies and genitals of complete strangers, but for the sake of saving and prolonging their lives.

Yup, GGR, the depths of Not Getting It are incredible. “But if he wants to stick his cock in something, and hates all that relating-to-women shit, what’s a man to do? All he’s asking is to order a human being like a pizza, and fuck someone who doesn’t want to fuck him, and you have the nerve to call him unpleasant!”

I know, I’m crazy like that. 

You know, if there were a way to insure equity and respectful treatment of sex workers, I’m all for legalizing it and encouraging women to feel as “entitled” to sexual satisfaction as men are…  But then I meet people who remind me that the majority of us are still poo-flinging monkeys, who make me doubt that such a thing could actually be done. 

I am depressed.

High notes, eh, Zif?
*ticks “Shrill” box on the Things Whiny Men Have Been Saying About Feminists Since Mary Fucking Wollstonecraft Bingo Card*

Zifnab, that troll up there? HE is the type you are defending here. Are you OK with that?

Have you ever hired a maid?  Is she a human being or a mop?  How about a plumber?  Is he a human being or a socket wrench with an ass crack?  Auto-mechanic:  Human being or brake pad replacement dohicky?

I have never hired a maid, but I assumed that they used a mop either provided by you or brought along for the job.  I was unaware that hiring a maid meant using her as a mop.  I have hired plumbers and automechanics and I never once held them in my hand and moved them to tighten a pipe or pry off a tire.  I guess I’ve been doing it wrong.

If the primary form of prostitution was hiring a woman to hold a fleshlight as opposed to hiring a woman to stick a penis inside, this might be a better metaphor.

prostitution is sexist: women vastly outnumber men and trans, and all sex workers have to cultivate a specific, stereotyped, male-ego-coddling image to do any business. I experienced this personally: when I upgraded my cybersexing from faking being a woman to camwhoring as a transvestite, I found out I had to be way more feminine in tone and personality, or the poor little babbies would feel hurt and probably a little gay

It is not a service.  Sex is interactive.  It involves the participation of two people.

I am not my pipes, nor is the plumber his/her tools or my pipes.  Neither one of us is trespassing on the other’s body.

We are our own bodies, and in general, interactions with other people’s bodies are subject to respecting the other person as a person. 

Buying the right to treat a person not as a person, but as a tool, is pretty deeply fucked. 

Now, if I shoved the maid into a corner or a closet like a mop, then you’d have a point re: treating people like tools instead of people.  And I’d be wrong to do that too.

Comment 158 I completely agree with. But I still think men who hire prostitutes are almost without exception assholes. Maybe in Super Lovely Legalised Respectful World non-assholey clients might be more plausible, but I doubt it.

just because I’m trolling, don’t think that anything I said was made up

But Zifnab, that is not the case. As I posted earlier when the Netherlands legalized prostitution, they became a hotspot for human trafficking because, while the well-adjusted men who just want sex with out hassles went to the legal brothels, probably at much increased numbers then when prostitution was illegal, their was still a demand for exploitable women without the protection of the law only now these women could be hidden in plain sight. Furthermore, a google search doesn’t reveal any obvious hits about prostitutes FOR women in the Netherlands. Perhaps promoting prostitution as an option for women will make legalization easier as women might feel that they would benefit from rather than feel that its threatening, but their doesn’t seem to be any evidence that legalizing prostitution will actually promote gender equality.

I agree though, that this CL thing will not help anyone and only has the potential to hurt some of the pimp-free sex workers.

Like I said previously, a comparison with people who are paid to perform non-medical services *on the bodies of other people*, not other people’s property, would be more apt.

Anarchy, where is that from?

Zifnab at 158: Several countries have systems of legalized, licensed and regularized prostitution. These countries apparently also have black markets for prostitutes that do not meet the legal criteria necessary to be a prostitute. Your system doesn’t really work as well as you think it will.

  Isone at 160: Masturbation is a form of sex and that involves one person. Plus sex can technically involve three or more people but the mechanics of multi-person sex always seemed questionable at best. Plus humans being humans, the jealously issues that might arise could be immense.

  My love/sex life isn’t really the best but I’m always a little amused about people gripping about the lack of love and sex in in their lives. Romance and sex are good but just because you aren’t getting any, doesn’t mean you have to mope around depressed and wait/hope for romance to happen. There are other things in life beyond romance and sex. Not having a partner or sex life, isn’t the end of the world.

  I suspect a lot more people, of both genders and all sexual orientations, with non-existing romance or sex would be a lot more happy if popular media didn’t constantly portray said people as losers and sad sacks that are really missing something. This doesn’t mean that romance and sex can’t be celebrated. It just means that there shouldn’t be an assumption in popular media that lacking a love/sex life makes a person a loser or something similar or worse.

Men didn’t invent prostitution out of whole cloth while women weren’t looking.

Ever wonder why and how a woman gets into prostitution?

Keeping the oldest profession in the dark is the peak of folly.

Farmers’ rights now!

LOL, Lee. You are far too reasonable for the internets.

Masturbation is a form of sex and that involves one person.

This seems to be how a lot of johns treat sex with prostitutes, actually; it’s a form of sex that involves only one person.

One of the johns in the article I posted said so outright.

You know, it should surprise no one that Martha Coakley is one of the AGs involved in this… the same person who couldn’t win a Senate race that should have been a walkover…

Honestly, this whole Craigslist issue is such a fiasco-in-the-making it makes me want to try to get a ballot initiative that a) legalizes prostitution and b) has stiff penalties for coercion, abuse, and human trafficking.

(Hmm, my comment didn’t seem to show up, hope I’m not double posting this)

Zifnab: The major disjuncture here seems to be that most feminists see sex as an interaction that should exist for mutual pleasure, while you see it as fundamentally a transaction. You see sex as a commodity, we see it as inherently something more than a commodity - many of us see it as something that cannot be bought while retaining the same meaning. Many of us think sex should be treated as having a meaning irreducible to economic value, because its valuation can only come through social context. Economic and social capital do not always exactly map onto each other, because there are some things that can be gotten only through social capital and not money - ex. you can’t buy friendship with money, because the exchange of money would make it no longer friendship in the same way, because they don’t want to be your friend, they just want your money. You have to BE a friend to GET friends. Try imaging sex under the same paradigm: you have to BE a sexual partner to GET sexual partners.

If you see the transaction as being traditionally “woman gives up sex in exchange for love/commitment/attention/economic security/some other commodity” of course it makes sense to replace the reward women get for sex with its equivalent economic value in money. But this model is ultimately sexist nonsense because it assumes women don’t desire sex in the same way men do, ie, *women do not also seek sex because they desire sex* but rather because they desire to gain something from “giving up” sex (which we presumably don’t want for some inexplicable reason). An alternative to the transaction model is to see sex as a mutually beneficial relationship where the woman gives sexual pleasure to a person she is attracted to while receiving sexual pleasure from a person who is attracted to her. This is not an exchange because there is equal participation by equal participation in reaching a mutually beneficial goal. If you must see that as still being an exchange (which I don’t think it is), it involves men and women exchanging the same “commodity” - which disrupts the traditional idea that women *lose value* if they do not demand something other than sex for sex (because sex is seen as a “commodity” only women possess).

Regardless, this whole line of questioning is an abstract, theoretical diversion from the reality of sex work, where it is primarily *women’s* bodies are viewed as sexual objects available primarily to *men.* Men are viewed as NEEDING sex, while women are viewed as having to be BRIBED to “give up” sex. Even if you’re into transactional sex, this is a messed-up state of affairs - maybe instead of paying women to “give up” sex (and then punishing them by shaming and arresting them) johns should work on supporting feminist efforts to teach that female sexual desire is healthy and natural while decreasing violence against women, so that female sexuality doesn’t have to be compensated with extra cash to make up for the shaming and risk of violence.

Maybe there’s a possibility that after we’ve gotten rid of the patriarchy, some women will still see sex as a transaction. Maybe some women will get off on fucking a bunch of sexually incompetent and/or physically unattractive strangers for money, or maybe they’ll just see it as a job like plumbing. But until then, sex is not the same kind of job as plumbing; it’s subject to a plethora of gendered cultural narratives that give men the advantage and women the disadvantage. And I’m still not sure women would fuck unattractive strangers for money if there wasn’t an artificial scarcity of sexual interaction created by the suppression of female desire.

This thread really ticks me off. Amanda, who normally has such a refreshingly realistic and nuanced take on sex, is convinced that she can make completely hasty generalizations about prostitution.

Indeed, what strikes me is that these are the exact same arguments that anti-feminists make about pre-marital teenage sex:

1. That it is inherently exploitative.
2. That the women involved don’t enjoy it.
3. That the men are “using” the women.
4. That the women will be “ruined” as a result of men’s exploitative actions.
5. That the legal system should come in and protect women from their own reckless decisions.

Look, Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon made very decent arguments about the exploitative nature of heterosexual sex. But it was ALL sex. MacKinnon said that in any heterosexual sex act, women could only get “rare contrapuntal glimpses” of a non-exploitative, equal relationship. The rest of the time it was false consiciousness and she was simply not perceiving the exploitation.

But we can’t run the legal system based on that premise, which was always the problem that other feminists had with Dworkin and MacKinnon. Women had to have the space to make their own choices, even bad ones, people are going to inevitably have relationships that Dworkin and MacKinnon would judge to be bad for women whether or not we permit them to do so, etc. Indeed, Ann Friedman just blogged the other day about she moved twice to be with a boyfriend, and never realized that this was a gendered expectation and that men rarely make a similar move. You can prohibit women from moving to be with their boyfriends, I guess, but we can all think of reasons why you wouldn’t want to do with that. And that’s even though the entire cultural expectation is clearly a product of the patriarchy, just like our system of prostitution is!

Look, like others in this thread, I have no compunction about believing the worst about many men who hire prostitutes. Many are violent, misogynist losers. Some are looking to dominate women or to force them to engage in painful or unsafe acts that women will rarely consent to. Many are cheating on their wives or girlfriends.

But is there no room in Amanda’s calculus for a man who has been married for a decade, whose wife doesn’t want to screw him anymore and doesn’t care if he goes and pays for sex discreetly (and indeed would rather that do so than take a mistress who could become a public embarrassment), but who has made the mutual decision with his wife to stay married? Is there no room in Amanda’s calculus for the couple with a bi-curious wife who hires a third party to try out a fantasy rather than trolling the swinger’s scene? Is there no room in Amanda’s calculus for a woman who enjoys casual sex with rich men and sees no harm in negotiating an explicit fee schedule for her time and companionship? Is there no room in Amanda’s calculus for a disabled guy or a total nerd who has no chance with conventionally attractive women to pay for a fantasy that is simply not available to him for free? Heck, is there no room in Amanda’s calculus for a gay man in a conservative town paying to have a no-strings-attached encounter with a man when there would be serious consequences if he sought such relations openly? Or for rich, older women who have neither the desire nor the physical beauty to compete on the dating market to hire a gigolo instead?

And more importantly, is there any greater basis for her blanket condemnation of these activities (she does, after all, say that she wishes prostitution would end ENTIRELY, not simply that abusive practices would stop) other than that she thinks there’s something gross and icky about a guy who pays for sex? Again, religious conservatives think it’s gross and icky and demeaning for a teenage girl to want sex outside of marriage. So they essentialize that belief and claim that it’s never good for a girl to engage in it. This really isn’t any different.

I’d actually be fine with getting rid of 90 percent of prostitution as it exists now. I have no truck with street pimps who use violence to enslave women, Asian massage parlors who import sex slaves and take their passports, strip clubs who use rumors about “extras” in the lap dance room to get customers, etc. And as I said, I don’t doubt that Amanda has correctly described a lot of the johns out there. But, you see, the thing is, I don’t doubt that religious conservatives’ portraits of horny young teenage boys who just want a conquest are that inaccurate when it comes to teenage pre-marital sex. That doesn’t mean, however, that I think it’s worth taking women’s agency away because some women are going to get exploited and are going to regret it.

And the thing is, neither does Amanda—unless it involves an act that disgusts her.

@Dilan Esper

That the women will be “ruined” as a result of men’s exploitative actions.

Where was this claimed?  As I read the thread, the harm done to women is that they are more likely to be assaulted and/or raped, which is a problem with illegal prostitution (and probably the men attracted to it).  Also, being assaulted and/or raped does not in any way “ruin” a woman.  The “ruin” that anti-premarital sex-types discuss is, most bluntly, no hymen = unlovable and unclean.

That the legal system should come in and protect women from their own reckless decisions.

Most everyone on this thread is in agreement that prostitution should probably be legalized and that sex slavery should not be.  The former is not asking the government to “come in and protect women from their own reckless decisions” any more than calling for regulations in food preparation is calling for government to protect people who eat from reckless decisions.  The latter is not protecting women from their own decisions at all since, y’know, non-consent is not a fucking decision that women make.

There are other problems with your argument, but these two really stand out.

@Dilan Esper - while your list of possible motives for seeing a sex worker is at first compelling, I think they could only exist in an unproblematic fashion after we’ve done a lot more dismantling of patriarchal sexual norms. Take the example of the bi-curious wife - while her desire is understandable, her avoidance of the swinger scene/gay bar/Craigslist scene allows her to avoid dealing with other bisexual women who are into MFF. Paying a sex worker has at least a decent chance in the current market of coercing an otherwise heterosexual woman (or lesbian woman) to perform sexual acts with partners she would not otherwise choose, ie the wife (or her husband). That’s saying nothing of the risk the sex worker is being economically coerced into the profession, exploited by a pimp, or trafficked. Maybe, post-patriarchy, sex work will be performed primarily by people who have widely varied sexual tastes, thus serving some sort of mutual benefit - sex worker gets to have varied and interesting sex as his/her job, while clients get to occasionally try out fantasies with an expert. But that’s not what the current distribution of sexual services looks like, and I find it hard to believe there are many instances like this in our society right now.

Man, liberal dudes will defend to the death their access to receptacles.

Man, liberal dudes will defend to the death their access to receptacles.

Well, if they’re not allowed to swing it anymore they gotta put it somewhere. ;p

If you see sex as disguting, you are probably against prostitution.

And I’m all for women having access to receptacles—or whatever the opposite of that would be. Radical equality FTW!

Dilan Esper: If a couple has been married for decades and one party doesn’t want to screw anymore but the other does, I’d think it would be highly recommendable if they get a divorce. Unless there are some serious physical reasons why sex can’t be done than sexless really aren’t that justifiable.

  quoderat at 178: Its perfectly legitimate to like sex but hate prostitution. Prostitution and other forms of commercialized sex might be viewed as demeaning something that should be beautiful or at least a lot of fun in very romantic/amorous people. A person might also feel that there is simply no way to get rid of the negative aspects of prostitution even with the best written laws and really honest law enforcement and that the sex industry will always have a very large criminal component.

Thanks to Dark Avenger and Selena for bringing some empirical evidence to the discussion about motivation.  Despite the limitations of self-reporting surveys, particularly with either volunteer respondents or a captive audience, there doesn’t appear to be much support for the notion that as a rule the motivation of johns is subjugation through purchase. 

Thanks also to Fellini, er, anarchy for an entertaining diatribe. 

I used to be one of those fools who, out of wishful thinking, would argue that johns aren’t that bad.  And then Katha Pollitt asked me point blank if I would date a man who visited prostitutes. 

That stuck with me.  Finally, I realized I was being intellectually dishonest.  Deep down inside, I did believe 1men who pay women for sex were scum.  It was unfair of me to think they were good enough for other women but not for me.

All due respect to Pollitt, her question was a giant non sequitor on whether consensual prostitution should be tolerated as a public policy.  Just because you personally find the notion disgusting is not a reason to support a continued ban of the practice.  Let others have different value judgments than yours, as long as the transaction is consensual. 

I’m prepared to tolerate consensual prostitution even though I don’t recommend it to anyone, men or women.  I’m not interested in it myself because 1) I’m married and I value fidelity and my promise of fidelity, and 2) I don’t see the fun in having sex with someone whose reactions to what I’m doing cannot be trusted to be real.  I’m not interested in fake orgasms.

Oh, and thanks also to alysia for the links to the Netherlands experience with increased trafficking after legalization.  Food for thought and reason for caution.

@178 - If you think men using women as commodities is disgusting, you’re probably against prostitution.
If not, then you can go suck strange dicks for money. It’s just sex right?

Its perfectly legitimate to like sex but hate prostitution. Prostitution and other forms of commercialized sex might be viewed as demeaning something that should be beautiful or at least a lot of fun in very romantic/amorous people.

Cosign. Arguably, people who really like prostitution hate sex. (Just like whoever created the Double Down appears to hate food. ;p) Because why else would you warp something lovely into the creepy mess* that prostitution is today?

*If there were a great deal more of the non-fucked-up kind of sex work in existence I would allow that the people that are alright with that arrangement might not hate sex. But the dudes who think a woman is the sum of her orifices? Nope. Non-coercive unpaid sex scares the piss out of those guys.

“s there no room in Amanda’s calculus for a disabled guy or a total nerd who has no chance with conventionally attractive women to pay for a fantasy that is simply not available to him for free?”

Yeah, Dilan, disabled guys have no chance with a conventionally attractive woman.

Ptui.

The concept of the Pity Fuck exists for the seemingly-hopeless sad sacks who just aren’t up to the standards of whatever makes someone “fuckable”.  As long as someone isn’t as ugly on the inside as they may be less-than-desirable on the outside, they can find someone without resorting to financial transactions.  There are extreme cases where there are deformities or skin diseases so awful that it makes it impossible for anyone but a paid performer to consort with someone, but those are so rare as to be outside of the conversation of even the atypical guys who pay for prostitutes.

@173 - The disabled nerd can find himself a disabled nerd willing to fuck him.

185# Unconscionable.

Quoderat: Any chance you commented as “Angie” on my post on Echidne’s site? If so, it’s interesting that you changed gender for Pandagon. On this site, at 6:11 p.m. Wednesday, you complained about the discussion on my post. Two minutes later, on Echidne’s site, Angie praised Amanda’s post, assuming Amanda agreed with her. Angie compared the “War on Drugs” to a “War on Prostitution,” as you also did. Of course, I realize this could just be a coincidence.

@186 - I know, right? What about dorks’ rights to conventionally attractive women :’(

Please. Think of the dorks (unless they’re female).

#174:

I see lots of people arguing for making prostitution illegal in the thread (and by the way, even though criminalizing only the johns is surely much better than throwing victimized sex workers in jail, that is still making prostitution illegal).

#175:

Indeed, it’s entirely possible that a woman has been trafficked, and that’s actually one of the best reasons to legalize prostitution. I can’t say I’m a big fan of Nevada’s brothel system, which turns sex workers into third class citizens, but I can say that there’s no evidence that any of the women at the ranches have been trafficked.

As for your argument about the patriarchy, that’s why I reference MacKinnon and Dworkin. Really, plenty of “free” sex is also exploitative and entrenches the patriarchy. I don’t think that point is really arguable. If you ban prostitution, you still have all that exploitative and patriarchy-entrenching “free” sex (plus a lot of exploitative illegal prostitution as well). I’m all for a project that radically rethinks gender roles, consent, and equality as it relates to heterosexual sex. But such a project can neither begin nor end with prostitution.

#176:

That’s uncalled for.

#179:

I don’t think people outside marriages should be so quick to judge why people stay in marriages. People stay in long-term marriages for all sorts of reasons even though they may no longer be having sex or may no longer be having it frequently. And people make all sorts of arrangements, tacit and explicit, for dealing with that situation. Certainly staying in a sexless marriage that provides some other sorts of benefits, whether it be in parenting, business partnership, social companionship, or whatever, isn’t the type of decision that is so out of bounds that it should be condemned by outsiders under any circumstances.

In fact, your argument could be used to justify Alabama’s sex toy ban. After all, any couple who can’t get things going anymore without using a toy should get divorced, right? Marriages are not that simple and your view is too reductive.

#182:

Also way too reductive. You know, there’s a ton of speculation in here about why men go to prostitutes. And as I said, I’m not here to excuse men who do—I suspect, even though it’s speculation, it has plenty of truth to it. But really? They pay for sex because they hate it?

I think that part of the problem here is, again, the same problem religious conservatives have about sex. When you tell them it’s just a fun activity that people ought to engage in if they want to, they reply that no, it’s spiritual, it’s sacred, it’s the union of flesh, and it cannot be used for trifling purposes without debasing the body. Well, that’s exactly what is going on here. We have a bunch of posters who think that if you “objectify” or “commercialize” sex, it somehow turns it into something other than a fun activity involving rubbing your bodies together. And that argument is just as bad, and begs just as many questions, when it is made by secular feminists as when it is made by religious conservatives. A person who pays a prostitute obviously wants to have sex and wants to pay for it. He may also, have other, darker motiviations. But that is the essence of the transaction. It is simply rubbing bodies together + money. The world doesn’t come to an end, the Gods don’t get offended, and sexuality is not somehow debased and bodies defiled just because it happens. It’s just another sex act accompanied by a cash transaction. And a lot of people here need to demystify it, a lot.

#183:

This is probably the most offensive comment in the thread. Is it your contention that every disabled guy will be able to hook up with a hot woman? Or that a lot of them will? Or that a few will? And what will the quality of those relationships be? Without in any way decrying or making light of this situation, it happens that it is very difficult for many handicapped people to have ANY sort of relationship. There’s always issues of perceived and actual burden, personal hygene, worries about what others will and do think, etc. And that’s not even to mention that lots of people have severe social anxieties as a result of their disabilities that make it difficult for them to meet any woman. Oldfeminist, meet reality! Heck, it’s never a sure thing even for guys without any serious disabilities to meet women (or women to meet men for that matter)! It’s a big lottery, and some people get very fortunate and others don’t, some meet suitable partners and others don’t, some are very attractive to the opposite sex and some aren’t, etc.

Seriously, if you can’t even concede that maybe, just maybe, it’s gonna be difficult for some people with disabilities to meet people and hook up, and maybe, just maybe, some of them are going to turn to prostitutes to obtain sexual gratification, I don’t think you have the necessary connection to reality on this issue. (And by the way, the topic of disabled folks going to prostitutes is, to my understanding, endlessly discussed on disability forums on the internet, and is also a staple of advice columns—every advice columnist ends up confronting it at some point. It’s VERY common.)

#184:

I don’t even buy the “they can find someone without resorting to financial transactions”. Let’s take a ridiculous hyperbolic example, but one that proves the point. Let’s say that some guy with relatively low social skills is able to occasionally find a date. In order to get that date, he has to ask 20 or 30 women out and get turned down a lot, thereby further depressing him. Many times, he goes on those dates and the women say they just want to be friends or whatever, i.e., they aren’t interested in sex. Every once in awhile, a woman is interested. These women end up either being women that he isn’t really attracted to, because the women he is attracted to won’t give him the time of day, or women with serious emotional baggage, whether it’s in the form of drugs, kids, stalking ex-boyfriends, possesiveness, or whatever form of general creepiness. Now, the guy eventually says he’s had enough of that and decides to hire prostitutes because dating life, even though he is trying very hard, doesn’t really get him into a satisfying sexual relationship.

Now, you could say “he can find someone without resorting to financial transactions”? But is that a very good argument? It seems to me your position has to be that as long as the person can theoretically, with a lot of work and facing a lot of rejections, find SOMEONE who wants to fuck him, no matter how undesirable and how screwed up, there’s no reason why prostitution should be available to him.

Again, I just have to think of religious conservatives when I hear this. The Pope, after all, would say that you don’t need to get a divorce and fuck anyone else, you can just fuck your wife or your husband. You have someone you can fuck, what’s the problem? But the issue isn’t simply having someone to fuck; often, it’s having someone who you want to fuck, who wants to fuck you (even if for mercenary reasons), and who isn’t going to add immense complications to your life along with the sex. That’s not really what I want out of life, but I hardly think that’s illegitimate. It certainly seems like a more valid conception of sexuality than the one you advocated.

#185:

This isn’t as offensive as oldfeminist’s sarcasm over the thought that a disabled guy might not be able to attract a conventionally attractive woman, but it is bad as well. So, in addition to every other way one’s life is complicated by a disability, the disabled also have to confine their sexual horizons to other disabled people? It’s really easy for someone who is able-bodied to tell disabled people “well, you can just screw someone else who is disabled”. Maybe that’s not who they want to screw!

Look, the issue of prostitution certainly doesn’t revolve around disabled people. If I agreed with the other arguments in Amanda’s post and in this thread, I wouldn’t say “but, but, we have to keep prostitution legal so that a few disabled people can fuck beautiful women if they want to!”. I understand this is, in the scheme of things, not a tremendously common use of commecial sex. But it is demonstrative of what is being done in this thread—there’s simply all sorts of reasons people might go to prostitutes, and some of them aren’t really bad ones, or, at the most, are ones that you folks might criticize but which are nonetheless perfectly defensible. Saying “no way, the limit is you can’t pay for sex” is just like any other limit on consensual sex. It may or may not deal with exploitation problems. It will also shut off legitimate avenues of sexual expression. Now, if you believe that (a) acts of prostitution are deeply immoral and icky and (b) the government has a strong and compelling interest in preventing deeply immoral and icky sex acts, then that may be sufficient justification for banning them. But I would hope that feminists would understand the problems with placing that power in the hands of the government.

#188:

Nobody has a “right” to fuck any particular person. But that’s not the point. We presume, and I think rightly, that all sorts of consensual activities between adults that involve sex are legal, including various situations in which conventionally attractive women hook up with not-so-attractive men, such as young hot women who marry rich old geezers, mistresses of politicians and corporate types, etc. We can criticize it as a cultural matter (as we do prostitution and numerous other things), but we don’t take away women’s agency to engage in this conduct if they believe that it benefits them.

The question is in a world where non-conventionally-attractive men are able to engage in various measures to try to attract conventionally attractive women, why a man simply paying her to have sex with him should be out of bounds? It isn’t a matter of pity. It is a matter of, this is basically the only situation that we strip women of their agency with respect to trading sex for ________. Why should that be?

Oh blah blah blah you’re not entitled to women’s bodies. Get over yourself. Women get turned down for sex and they deal with it. Buy a damn fleshlight.

So, in addition to every other way one’s life is complicated by a disability, the disabled also have to confine their sexual horizons to other disabled people?

You mean disabled men right? That they shouldn’t have to confine their sexual horizons to disabled women.

@189 re 176 - It is so very very called for.

191# But… they’re feeding into the very system that disadvantages them in the first place by categorically rejecting other disabled people as potential sex partners, actively validating the hierarchy by saying that sex with an able-bodied person is literally worth more, and making sure that more disabled people have the same negative experience of rejection and sexlessness. After all, there aren’t that many able-bodied people that are appalled or insulted by the fact that they primarily have able-bodied prospective partners to choose from.

Yeah, Dilan is just using “disabled” as a stand-in for “unattractive.”

I kind of enjoy watching men utterly lose their shit when confronted with the same dating advice women get from all corners.  Oh, someone told you to lower your standards?  God, the humanity!

“I can say that there’s no evidence that any of the women at the ranches have been trafficked.”

Can you really say that? Maybe you have read reports that I had not, but I linked earlier to a wiki page about how the UN has found that human trafficking has increased in the Netherlands since prostitution was legalized. A quick google search showed this book http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/prostitution_research/000168.html which is based on the case that makes the argument that the same thing is happening in NV as happened in the Netherlands: prostitution being legalized makes it harder to find/prosecute illegal prostitution and so human trafficking increases—although I have not read the book and cannot testify to its quality.

Additionally the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada#Illegal_prostitution states that in 1998 four underage girls were trafficked from Oregon to work in the brothels. The wikipage also claims that LV is ranked 14th among cities with highest amount of child prostitutes. The article is a pretty interesting read and has pro and con legalization arguments.

Anyway, it can hardly be asserted as cold hard fact that legal prostitution reduces human trafficking. Sex work is not like the drug trade—there isn’t a significant portion of the stoner population that enjoys knowing there shit caused human suffering. But many men—enough men to create a market regardless of the legality of prostitution—enjoy the fact that they are buying a completely dis-empowered woman (or child or man).

This is neither here nor their wrt legalizing prostitution, but prostitution exists in a cultural context where sex is too often seen as a service provided for men and the very nature of prostitution reinforces that view of sex. Like in your examples of people who need prostitutes, you start out saying person but then switch to he. It is just sort of assumed that a disfigured woman without social skills just doesn’t need to get laid.

I am not really 100% behind making prostitution legal or illegal. I just think that there isn’t a clear case that legalized prostitution will make illegal prostitution go away and that, clearly, the sex trade isn’t just a matter of people buying what they want but has firm roots in “the patriarchy” so to speak.

“but, but, we have to keep prostitution legal so that a few disabled people can fuck beautiful women if they want to!”

Remember, folks, only men are people.

These women end up either being women that he isn’t really attracted to, because the women he is attracted to won’t give him the time of day, or women with serious emotional baggage, whether it’s in the form of drugs, kids, stalking ex-boyfriends, possesiveness, or whatever form of general creepiness.

And, of course, only women are undesirable.

If you want a guy to eat out your snatch, dangle a $50 in his face.

Klassy.

@80 mnem:  “Men who go to prostitutes are sad, pathetic creatures who are unable to relate to women as human beings.  You can make all of the excuses you want for them, but that’s the reality:  they don’t see women as human beings, but as objects that they can purchase, fuck, and send away.  The fact that you see absolutely nothing wrong with viewing women as objects for purchase and not human beings says a whole lot about you.”

Say things keep going the way they are going, with increasingly more equal opportunities for men and women, better contraceptive methods, etc.  And male prostitution that caters to straight women starts to become available and profitable.  I am assuming that your opinion on people who hire prostitutes would hold steady, you would think that women who hire male prostitutes view men as objects for purchase and not human beings, and that this is wrong.  I think you are right that being able to pay someone to get the sex you want, when you want it, no strings attached, will maybe make you treat the prostitute like an object for purchase, but would you necessarily generalize for the whole gender?  You still would have sons, brothers, husband, co-workers, friends who are guys, that you do not consider objects.

@Dilan Esper #189

I see lots of people arguing for making prostitution illegal in the thread (and by the way, even though criminalizing only the johns is surely much better than throwing victimized sex workers in jail, that is still making prostitution illegal).

I think you are seeing something that isn’t there.  I went through the thread again and counted at least 8 comments supporting legalization.  I counted one guy who had visited a prostitute who didn’t take a position one way or the other, and two commenters noting that legalization likely will not end sex trafficking, but not taking a position other than that.  Everyone else?  Arguing over whether or not Craigslist should keep the ads (most were in favor of keeping them) or whether or not johns were predominately assholes (which has nothing to do with whether or not prostitution should be legalized since, for example, most Pandagon posters believe the Tea Partiers are assholes but no one has ever claimed that we should make attending Glenn Beck rallies illegal).

These women end up either being women that he isn’t really attracted to, because the women he is attracted to won’t give him the time of day, or women with serious emotional baggage, whether it’s in the form of drugs, kids, stalking ex-boyfriends, possesiveness, or whatever form of general creepiness. Now, the guy eventually says he’s had enough of that and decides to hire prostitutes because dating life, even though he is trying very hard, doesn’t really get him into a satisfying sexual relationship.

So let me get this straight:

women having kids = “serious emotional baggage” and “general creepiness”

men hiring prostitutes = not at all creepy & totally understandable.

...alrighty then. You are clearly a man who is sympathetic to and knowledgeable about women’s lives. 9.9

And male prostitution that caters to straight women starts to become available and profitable.

The most gender equitable country on this planet is Iceland.  They don’t have male prostitution with female clients.

#92 alysia:  THIS.  OMG, exactly what I meant, but much better said.

Rasberryjamba—I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I am going to answer anyway. First off, it is a little ridiculous to claim that counter-factual because there isn’t the history and cultural context of men being seen as objects to serve and please women, but assuming that their is a revelation and the patriarchy is overthrown and men and women are totally equal. One of two things would happen—either the “johns are bastards” view is right and prostitution will just cease to exist, or the “sex is just like any other business transaction” view is right and men and women will both seek out the service of sex workers.

I happen to be in the former category, but it is mostly just speculation either way. Also http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/FAQ.html#prostitution the 2006 number of men who have seen a prostitute is 15.3%. The Kinsey number for 1948 is 69%. It would seem that prostitution has decreased as gender equality increased. I couldn’t find any info on women who use prostitutes from a google search.

Ha, i wrote 206 before 205 was up. But yeah it is a little weird. I am sort of rationalist oriented and don’t normally think of sex as being magical or whatever, yet I have been really frustrated before and never would even consider paying someone. I really don’t know for sure why though (besides being broke).

@quoderat #103:  Am I not getting it, or are you arguing that men get a type of horniness so much more severe than female horniness that it is just beyond female comprehension?

@alysia

Thanks for the Kinsey link.  I wish I had thought to look there, that is really interesting information to know.

I have never considered paying anyone either.  I think it ties in a bit with what Unree said back in 98:

Message to lonely dudes:  You deserve to have your needs fulfilled.  Don’t change a thing; you’re fine the way you are.  Go ahead and buy pussy that meets your standards.

Message to lonely women: You don’t deserve to have your needs fulfilled.  You must earn your satisfaction by complying with all sorts of costly demands.  Your not getting your needs met means you are undesirable and unworthy.  You’re ugly and should loathe yourself.

Men are told the first and so pay money, get sex, and get to believe that the woman might actually like them.  I, having lived my life being told the second, would pay money, get sex, and never for a second be able to believe that the guy might actually enjoy it.  I mean, I had to pay him so I didn’t “earn it” and I should loathe myself.  Even if I were really desperate for sex, I wouldn’t be desperate for that.

It’s all sorts of fucked up, but IBTP.

I’m a heterosexual woman who’s been propositioned by male prostitutes. No thank you.

Paying somebody to fuck me obviously isn’t going to alleviate loneliness or affirm my desirability or do any of those nice things a sexual relationship is supposed to do besides get me off, which I can do myself with a better success rate.

There have however been periods in my life when crushing poverty made me seriously consider prostituting as a last resort to keep a roof over my head.

So, what could it be that men get out of using prostitutes that they have an interest in clinging to? Hmm… Thinking Caps.

@208 He’s saying men can’t understand why women don’t like to be street harassed by men and women can’t understand that men’s horniness should be everybody’s central concern in life, and that these are equivalent issues.

@211

If women would only understand that men’s horniness was everbody’s primary concern, we might have less of a problem with street harassment.

Everybody wins?

Yeah that’s pretty much it. If men can’t harass or rent women, they’re as oppressed as women are.

Dilan, there is no right for unconventionally attractive or looking people to have sex with conventionally attractive people. If it happens great but there is no right to sex with conventionally attractive people or even unconventionally attractive people or even people that are unattractive. If a “total nerd” wants to have sex with conventionally attractive people than that nerd can take steps to make that more likely. The nerd could work out, where more conventionally fashionable clothing, and learn to speak about subjects that non-nerds might be interested in rather than anime or video games. If the nerd is not willing to do this, than the nerd lives with the consequences. Its that simple.

You know, saying “but otherwise the poor, sad disableds will NEVER BE ABLE to bang hot chix!” shows:
A. very little respect for people with disabilities, and
B. one point five imperial fuckloads of the “this-body-is-objectively-better-than-that-one” attitude that disadvantages PWD in our society in the first place.

NOTE: I do not want it to be illegal for you to hire a (non-coerced) prostitute for sex. I also do not want it to be illegal for you to hire a “friend” to go out for a beer and a giggle with. But to people who view sex as a fun, creative, collaborative act, and not a service one person buys from another, those two things make equally no sense.

The idea that people who have trouble getting laid are unattractive is probably bunk.  I may revert to anecdata here, but more likely it’s a socialisation problem.  Having a socialisation problem doesn’t (necessarily) mean you’re an asshole; you may well have asperger’s or social anxiety disorder or whatever that makes it difficult to manage that kind of thing.  We really don’t make many (any) allowances for people having different mental skills, the same way we might for physical skills.  I dunno - I’m probably a 5 or a 6 in physical appearance (I’m not bragging, I’m just saying), and when I’ve asked someone on a date, my historical success rate is pretty high (fwiw, I’m 11 for 12), but I’m still a pretty sad sack (I’m 28, and I’m 11 for 12).  But regardless of who the sad sacks are and why, it’s still not particularly topical.

Either way, we’re still making the same mistake, of assuming the reason people are visiting prostitutes is because they want to have sex, and can’t any other way.  While those people exist, the evidence suggests they’re not exactly great in number.  The solutions they need might be a multitude, but paying for sex probably isn’t significant (and under the circumstances of sex slavery, et al., not the ethical choice either.  Open, unionised prostitution in some utopia?  Maybe.  But that’s a far off bridge, which we can cross when we come to it.)

I dunno, I’ve been with a number of guys who were super enthusiastic, but not terribly good at it.  Damn you, Sam Kinison.

My ears are burning ... but seriously, I haven’t seen a cultural narrative for rejecting cunnilingus in media, and it does occur not infrequently (even, if possibly perfunctory, in porn).  At least, when I try to think of it occuring in media, I most strongly recall American Pie, but it shows up in the last movie I saw, Going the Distance, though I don’t have an unbiased sample.  Maybe behaviour doesn’t match the model?  Or am I missing a narrative?

Also, can I say that while 15% of men currently is higher than I’d have guessed, it seems pretty believable, but 69% in 1948?!  Sweet Zombie Jesus!  The mind boggles.

The question is in a world where non-conventionally-attractive men are able to engage in various measures to try to attract conventionally attractive women, why a man simply paying her to have sex with him should be out of bounds? It isn’t a matter of pity. It is a matter of, this is basically the only situation that we strip women of their agency with respect to trading sex for ________. Why should that be?

Comment #191: Dilan Esper on 09/10 at 01:44 AM

Why can’t non-conventionally attractive men try harder to become more conventionally attractive? Seriously, I know some posters have argued that this sentiment is somehow rude or unfair but I’m posing it in all honesty. I’ve lurked on this site for years and read through entire threads on this and similar topics and I still don’t understand.

The vast majority of posters who defend the need/right of men who aren’t good looking to seek prostitutes who, ostensibly, are good looking (apparently all prostitutes are GREAT looking women) repeatedly invoke “looks” as a significant barrier to men finding willing sex partners.

Why can’t men try harder to be better looking? Why is this option ridiculed and/or dismissed?

Nobit, how dare you question the sacred right of a not conventionally attractive man to have sex with a woman who is in fact conventionally attractive, hot even?  Next you’re going to suggest—-perish the thought—-that men shouldn’t be considered more important or more entitled or more deserving than women.  You’re going to suggest, perish the thought, seriously, that men have to empathize with women.  Women are holes for fucking!  They aren’t people!

I’m with Brian on the relationship between socialization problems and the ability to get laid/find romance. A lot of the people I know with sucky sex lives, including myself, aren’t particularly unattractive or are creeps but people who are either rather eccentric or very shy and simply do not do well in places like clubs or bars. Since most places where people meet people require a more typical personality than people with a different personality aren’t going to be good.

  Another problem is that a lot of people seem to want instant chemistry rather than building a relationship. The dates I’ve been on were fun but I wouldn’t say that there was anything spectacular about theme or that I’ve had a sudden rush of passion for any of the women. Rather, I felt that it was something that could be built on by successive dates. Many of the women thought the dates were fun but wanted more instant chemistry. I’ve met other people with similar experiences. So one reason why people might be having miserable dating lives is different approaches, with one party seeing a relationship as something that is built and others expecting something more instant.

Not that men defending misogynist attitudes will listen, of course, but here’s some more evidence against the “johns are darling sweethearts who simply can’t get laid” theory.  I would like to draw attention to some pertinent information:

*Johns are picky.  Really picky. They brag about how picky they are.  They want it to be clear that they are not hard up, but are in fact connoisseurs of female flesh.  Some people prefer pinots, some cabernets.  Some johns prefer blondes, some Asians.  They are in fact much pickier, they’ll have you know, than wine drinkers when it comes to their objects of consumption, i.e. women.  A wine drinker who prefers pinot will drink cabernet in a pinch.  But these men who are very clear that they’re not hard up will send that Asian home if they prefer blondes.

*Johns have specific love for women that they see as especially unwilling.  College girls that fell into this and don’t know what they’re in for are especially loved.  The more likely a woman is going to be frightened, shocked, or trying to conceal her disgust, the hotter.  The more used to it she is, the less hot.

*I’d like to draw attention to the existence of wives for these supposedly hard-up men who can’t get any woman to have them.

*Take special note of how important it is for the johns to get with other johns and rank and review the women.  If you fuck a prostitute without witnesses, remember, you don’t get man points.  Some of them seem to get more pleasure out of talking to other men about how women are commodities to rank and review more than they do the sex itself.  The love of the word “bitch” is something I’d like to bring special attention to.

Brian,

That 69% in 1948 was right after World War Two.  At that time, in those environments, and those levels of desperation (by which I mean people literally starving, not horny,) it wouldn’t be surprising that soldiers could convince themselves that giving their money to a prostitute was a charitable contribution.  And those who were running off to war weren’t facing modern casualty rates.  The US lost 417,000 troops, which makes our current wars seem like bad weeks as far as military deaths go.  If I was 18 or 19 and on my way to Europe or the Pacific, I’d have probably gotten some things off the bucket list, and Having Sex would be near the top.

Which doesn’t make it right by any means, but it’s not just those of pure German gene pools who are genetically-driven to go a bit outside their normal ethical standards during wartime years.

I don’t know why we’re talking about men who can’t get laid.

This thread is about johns.

These are separate groups of people.  The myth that johns are men who mean well but can’t get laid is just that, a myth.  Johns are motivated by the desire to be in situations where real women are reduced totally to sex objects—-where you can fuck someone whose own personality and desires are irrelevant, as is her name.

I have a better explanation, 3letter.  I believe 1948 was during a period prior to the second wave of feminism.  Most men didn’t believe women were full humans with equal rights, and so visiting a prostitute wasn’t a big deal.

Forgive me, I’m not good with html but:

“...So one reason why people might be having miserable dating lives is different approaches, with one party seeing a relationship as something that is built and others expecting something more instant. “

Comment #219: Lee on 09/10 at 09:39 AM

So two people go out, discover a perfectly ordinary incompatibility and she… goes home and tells her friend about the date and he… goes to a track and buys a blow job? Really?

How is “dating is hard” anything but a non-sequitor?

“Nobit, how dare you question the sacred right of a not conventionally attractive man to have sex with a woman who is in fact conventionally attractive, hot even?”

Comment #218: Amanda Marcotte on 09/10 at 09:37 AM

(Again, not good with html)

And, again, I cannot figure this out. Men who’ve laid down this very argument in this very thread,  please, help me out here? Why can’t/don’t you work to become more physically attractive in a conventional way? It can’t cost much more money than paying a woman to perform sex for you, can it?

I am attractive; I work at it. Every woman I know who is considered “conventionally attractive” really, really works at it. I know a lot of men fantasize about ethereal beauties who are all natural; flowing locks, no “make-up”, comfortable shoes or whatever that dude was going on about once in a thread. But are there really grown men who don’t realize that conventional good-looks/beauty take a lot of real work, time, and expense to create consistently?

I’d like to thank yay anarchy for showing up, being a massive asshole, and proving my point.  Thanks, douchebag!  Now I want to boil my computer.

Men who’ve laid down this very argument in this very thread, please, help me out here?

The only reasonable explanation is they believe men are people who deserve all sorts of goodies, and women are objects whose desires don’t count.  A woman who thinks that she has an equal right to man to make certain demands on her partners to be attractive is like a car that thinks it gets to drive you.

What’s funny is how many men complain that women don’t like them and then go on to defend treating women like they exist to please men.  Like, just not being an asshole will probably improve your game.  Suggesting that men who pay women for sex are princes among men to women you date probably does result in women taking a pass.  There’s so many instant fixes for so many of your problems, john defenders!  Maybe someone needs to hold “Don’t Be A Douchebag” courses, where we go over lessons like:

*Double Standards, And Why They Piss Women Off
*“Women” Is A Category That Encompasses More Than Hot 21-Year-Olds
*Stop Calling Women “Shallow” Until You Stop Ruling Out Women That Aren’t Half Your Weight/Age
*Calling Women “Gold Diggers” Isn’t As Charming As You Think

Think of your own courses!

Maybe we could even have second level courses, where we demonstrate that many people form relationships for reasons outside of he needs his cock sucked and she, well….. I guess the main focus of level one is getting them to stop thinking that what women want is irrelevant and/or just an obstacle to the critical dick sucking portion.  Think of the courses!

*Having Discussions About Films Watched/Books Read/Politics
*Listening To Her Opinion Instead Of Just Nodding And Wondering When She’ll Stuff A Cock In It
*Women My Own Age Often Have Much In Common With Me
*Sex Can Be Better If You Actually Like Someone

“A woman who thinks that she has an equal right to man to make certain demands on her partners to be attractive is like a car that thinks it gets to drive you.”

Le Sigh.

I know that you’re both serious and joking. Seriously joking? I don’t know; it’s distressing. I’ve read Pandagon for years and the predictability of certain arguments on certain topics remains mind-boggling. Hundreds of comments on this thread alone and not a single one disproves a basic reality:

Most of the men who pay prostitutes for sex do so because they enjoy paying prostitutes for sex.

What the fuck do issues about conventional attractiveness and how hard it is to meet that special some one have to do with that simple, basic reality? And, by the by, none of them ever successfully disprove it. They argue against it, counter it with anecdotes, make arguments about consent and legality and disabled men who can’t get laid. All of that is just noise.

Most of the men who frequent prostitutes could have sex with a woman who wanted to have sex with them but they choose, instead, to pay someone who doesn’t want to have sex with them. This isn’t rocket science.

Is the problem that -especially on a blog that deals in progressive politics and issues of feminism- the desire to pay another human being for sex is not regarded as morally neutral? If I said, “Most of the men who seek out prostitutes for sex do so because they actually enjoy and/or prefer paying for sex and this is neither right nor wrong,” would the john-defenders admit the obvious?

#183:
This is probably the most offensive comment in the thread.
Comment #190: Dilan Esper on 09/10 at 01:38 AM

YAYYYY I WIN!!!!!!!111!!111

Is it your contention that every disabled guy will be able to hook up with a hot woman? Or that a lot of them will? Or that a few will?

How is that relevant?

No one has the right to demand a “hot” woman to have sex with.  Not even people who didn’t do anything wrong but get born in a body people don’t like to have sex with.

Most people who are disabled are still able to masturbate.  Those who aren’t don’t require a hot woman.  They require a sex aid.

These women end up either being women that he isn’t really attracted to, because the women he is attracted to won’t give him the time of day, or women with serious emotional baggage, whether it’s in the form of drugs, kids, stalking ex-boyfriends, possesiveness, or whatever form of general creepiness.

And the men many sex workers have sex with are typically men they really aren’t attracted to, because the men they’re attracted to won’t give her the time of day, or men with serious emotional baggage, whether it’s in the form of drugs, possessiveness, need to dominate, inability to see women as human beings, or whatever form of general creepiness.

1st Level:

*Why Should I Even Want to Have Sex With Someone Who Thinks I Don’t Really Like Sex?
*Saying You’re Interesting and Being Interesting are Not Actually the Same Thing
*Personal Style: How to go Beyond a 3-minute Shower and the “Smell Test”

2nd Level:

*In-Jokes Make Everything Hotter: The Special Communication Between Equals
*Sunday Morning Sex and All Day Bed-Lolling; You Can’t Actually Buy a Real “Girl-friend” Experience

Also, can I say that while 15% of men currently is higher than I’d have guessed, it seems pretty believable, but 69% in 1948?!  Sweet Zombie Jesus!  The mind boggles.
Comment #216: Brian on 09/10 at 09:19 AM

1948 is three years post-WWII.  Most men who were physically able and didn’t have vital defense jobs were in the service sometime during WWII.  Most of those were away from home for periods of time, and the social construct was something like “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.”

So I find this number highly unsurprising.

Nobitron: I’m really not quite sure how you produced that from what I wrote.

oldfeminist and Amanda,

I don’t find it surprising either.  The war was a huge factor, and it was before another wave of feminism, as well.  The sexism of the day also allowed more men to say the truth (or even lie in the affirmative in an attempt to “fit in” with perceived normalcy.)

From some random website I dredged up about Victorian England:

“According to renowned historian Judity Walkowitz, a 19th century city would commonly have 1 prostitute per 36 inhabitants, or 1 per 12 adult males. ”

Which suggests that prostitution has absolutely plummeted over the last 150 years or so. Fewer women are forced to work as prostitutes today because of the availability of other jobs, but don’t tell me the demand side of the equation hasn’t changed as well - there’s no way that level of prostitution would be sustained if only 15% of men ever paid for sex at all.

I’m with Amanda - this has changed because men who see women as people, and sex as fun you have with people, don’t tend to buy sex.

Lee, no problem. I’m happy to explain:

You were agreeing with another poster, Brian, on how an inability to socialize with in some stereotypical context like a bar or night club made finding romance and sex very difficult for some people. You then went on to add that varying ideas about what makes successful chemistry can also be obstacles to dating.

The confusion lies, I think, in my typing too quickly and not using the preview feature. I did not mean that you, specifically, were using these issues as a way justify soliciting sex from a prostitute but, rather, that these are the kinds of things people say when making those justifications. Other posters on this thread, on lots of threads, in discussions on the internet and in analog point out how hard dating can be for people as a valid reason for the necessity of the sex industry. I consider the two issues unrelated.

I was quoting you as an illustration of the “dating is hard” idea and unintentionally suggested that you were using “dating is hard” as a justification for soliciting sex from a prostitute.

My bad.

In other news dating is hard.

“Nobit, how dare you question the sacred right of a not conventionally attractive man to have sex with a woman who is in fact conventionally attractive, hot even?”

And, again, I cannot figure this out. Men who’ve laid down this very argument in this very thread, please, help me out here?

Well, it wasn’t my “very argument” but assuming your question is sincere I might be able to give you my answer.  I perceive a disconnect here on the use of “right”.  I think of a “right” as something one in a free society is permitted to do, i.e. there is no or ought to be no legal ban on it.  I may or not pass judgment on the behavior’s morality.  Today book burning comes to mind. 

The way “right’ has been used here is a moral entitlement to the behavior, something one “deserves”, emphasized by the adjective “sacred”. (Also exemplified in Amanda’s statement, “The only reasonable explanation is they believe men are people who deserve all sorts of goodies, and women are objects whose desires don’t count.”) As long as a john does not abuse (actually not symbolically) the woman I make no moral judgment on him, even though it’s not my cup of tea.  If there are men who are willing to pay for sex (not for a human punching bag) then women ought to be allowed (i.e., have the right) to take their money for sex.

I see a contradiction in the view that autonomous women should be allowed to sell sex but not to have customers willing to pay her.  I don’t see the Swedish model as advocating this.  They want to ban all prostitution and prefer to choke it off on the demand side. 

I brought up the “conventionally attractive” idea as an explanation of why Amanda from her “privileged” perspective might have little understanding or sympathy with people less gifted.  Sort of like a wealthy person saying to a working person who complains about housework, “What’s the problem?  Just hire a maid.”  I’ve backed off on that thinking a bit when someone pointed out that heartache over rejection is not limited to ugly folks. 

I don’t know why we’re talking about men who can’t get laid.

This thread is about johns.

These are separate groups of people.  The myth that johns are men who mean well but can’t get laid is just that, a myth.  Johns are motivated by the desire to be in situations where real women are reduced totally to sex objects—-where you can fuck someone whose own personality and desires are irrelevant, as is her name.  Comment #222: Amanda Marcotte

If you will allow “have a lot of trouble” to substitute for the absolute “can’t”, then it’s not a myth.  But hold onto those convictions despite empirical evidence to the contrary if it makes you feel better.  Otherwise, scroll up to #125:

  “Most of these guys fall into one of three basic categories: Sad sacks who are looking for a girlfriend-like experience; those who don’t want to deal with the emotional component of a relationship and just want the sex; and thrill seekers. Only a very small number are actual sociopaths,” Shively said.

It wasn’t even your claim of the unfuckable guy myth that I quarreled with in the beginning.  It was your firm belief that as a rule the john’s thrill is the payment aspect, not the sex.  From my reading of what these guys write, supported by the empirical evidence in the link at @125 above, it’s the relative ease for NSA sex that attracts most johns.

MiddleAgeLiberal, I don’t think that’s a fair reading of what Amanda said.  I thought she was saying not that johns are attracted to the act of paying itself, but that they like the power dynamic that accompanies paying for sex.  Johns have more power in an encounter with a prostitute than they would in regular NSA sex with a non-prostitute.  That’s why they like it.  The fact that they are paying is not some minor detail that has no affect on the sex they have.

Middleageliberal—your link is specifically about the best cases—men with no criminal records who have never been caught with a prostitute before. Even the article gives lie to the fact that these blokes are simply unfuckable becuase it mentions that “many have wives.” And the program shows that when you spend a day telling johns how prostitution puts THEM at risk and then follow them around for a year, they are less likely to see prostitutes again. I don’t see how this disproves that men who pay for sex like the way they can disrespect illegal sex workers. I had a link up there about the Netherlands that also suggests this is the case, but I won’t rehash it yet again.

217# Because it’s a stereotypically feminine behavior, and therefore demeaning and, among men, the exclusive millieu of homosexhuals, so they won’t stoop to such a thing even if it means that they get more heterosex with attractive women as a result. They’d rather use the money to engage in the traditionally masculine behavior of exchanging money for sex. After all, once you get a free woman in bed, she’ll only do what she likes to do there, anyway. Also, many men write the costs of dating in when making the comparison.

zif, Middleaged…you’ll never convince Amanda that prostitution is anything but a power trip for all johns.  That’s what she believes.  And since it is impossible to produce any conclusive evidence to the contrary that she will accept, and there are many examples of asshole johns who really do get off on the power trip for her to throw in your face, you’re not going to get anywhere.  These arguments have all been made before, many times over several years, and all have gotten nowhere.  She’s a model of consistency.

She doesn’t believe there is any such thing as an unfuckable guy.  Either he’s unwilling to “lower his standards” and is therefore an asshole, or he’s unwilling to “do the work” to make himself fuckable at the level he wants (“feels entitled to”) and is therefore an asshole.  (The similarity with the Republican argument vis-a-vis the unemployed being lazy parasites who could find work if they really wanted to is apparently lost on her.)  Either way, anyone claiming to be unfuckable or arguing for the existence of the unfuckable is either whining, an asshole, or advocating for assholes.  You can’t win.

This was the most perceptive exchange in this entire discussion:

Amanda:  “I’m not a fan of men who think that they’re entitled to buy sex. I don’t have a problem with women who freely choose to sell it in the slightest—-a lot of them are good people, in my experience.”

Middleagedliberal:  “I’ve always seen that position as contradictory.  It says that women should be able to sell but that there shouldn’t be any customers.”

That’s it exactly.  That is exactly what Amanda believes.  That’s her perfect world.  End of discussion.

OK, let’s try to cut through this:

1. Snark is not an argument. It might be fun to just make one-line comments about people’s motives, it isn’t the same thing as answering their points.

2. My central problem is I think that a lot of you are using the same arguments the religious right uses. “As long as they can have sex with somebody, they have no right to seek sex from anyone else”? That’s what the religous right says about premarital, nonmarital, and extramarital sex. “It doesn’t matter if they can’t find anyone they are attracted to, as long as they can have sex with someone even if they aren’t attracted to that person”? Same thing the religious right tells gays. “Paying money for sex is inherently demeaning and I have all sorts of hypothesized, evidence-free bad reasons why guys would do it, and therefore I don’t have to pay any attention to any argument as to what legitimate reasons people might have for doing it”? Same thing the religious right says about sex toys, erotica / porn, and non-procreative sex acts. “I think guys who pay prostitutes are icky and wouldn’t want to date them”. Same thing the religious right says about people who aren’t virgins on their wedding night, guys who are into oral or anal sex, or horny teenagers who want to date their daughters.

And the fact that you folks are deploying these arguments is exactly why I think that what is really driving this conversation is the sense that paying for sex is icky. Because when something is icky to us, we humans make up all sorts of reasons why it absolutely has to be bad and immoral and dangerous. Of course, sometimes it is—and I am not denying that a lot of the REALITY of prostitution is all about gender discrimination and an entrenched patriarchy. (So is the reality of heterosexual sex, too, by the way—I don’t see how MacKinnon and Dworkin could possibly be wrong about that.) But there’s a difference between saying “I oppose prostitution because in practice, it encourages sex slavery, poor working conditions, discrimination against women, etc.” and “I oppose prostitution because any guy who would visit a prostitute must be a jerk.” The first is an empirical, testable argument. The second is just an expression of the ick factor.

I’ll leave the rest of the stuff aside because I really think this is at the nub of this. Why do you folks think your arguments against ALL prostitution (i.e., if you share my position that we should go hard after the abuses but not outlaw the entire enterprise, this isn’t directed at you) are not simply the same old expressions of the ick factor that we are used to from the religious right? What is the difference between telling an unfulfilled disabled person “well you can fuck a disabled person you aren’t attracted to” any different from telling an unfulfilled gay person “well you can fuck a person of the opposite sex you aren’t attracted to”?

Why is this not simply a rehash of the same old hasty generalizations, essentialization of sex, and assumption that something that you find personally distasteful must be wrong that we always get from the right wing?

Instead of questioning my motives or filling up on the snark, you might answer this because I’ve now made the point 3 times and nobody’s addressed it.

“My central problem is I think that a lot of you are using the same arguments the religious right uses. “As long as they can have sex with somebody, they have no right to seek sex from anyone else”? “

NO.

They don’t have the *right* to have sex with anybody.  They just don’t.  No one has to give up her or his body for someone else’s sexual enjoyment, no matter how pitiful that other person may be.

I’ve said this multiple times.  Others have said it, too.

Maybe you don’t believe it, maybe you don’t agree, but that’s the position you’re arguing against.

Oldfeminist:

If that’s your actual argument, then you wouldn’t mention the fact that there was other sex potentially available.

In other words, if it’s simply a matter of “nobody has the right to have sex with anyone”, then that holds true whether or not there’s actually, as an empirical matter, sex available to them.

And as Middleage says above in #238, you are actually misusing the term “right”. My position isn’t that sex is a right, but that if two people consent to have sex with each other, they have the right to do so. It happens that this is the position taken by the entire feminist movement in the Lawrence v. Texas case, so it isn’t as though this is an extreme or anti-feminist position.

In any event, you still don’t answer my point, which is we saw a whole series of arguments that are completely congruent with what the religious right says about sex. Anyone want to defend that?

“I see a contradiction in the view that autonomous women should be allowed to sell sex but not to have customers willing to pay her.  I don’t see the Swedish model as advocating this.  They want to ban all prostitution and prefer to choke it off on the demand side. “

Haha choke it off.

*lotion* here ya go.

@223 and 233 - Post-WWII, weren’t a lot of women widowed and shoved out of their factory jobs - due to decreased demand for war equipment and to make way for men who supposedly needed the work more?
I’d think that set of circumstances would put some severe limitations on women’s options to support themselves and their children.

That’s how prostitution happens, ladies and germs. It’s not because prostitutes just love prostitootin’.

Is the problem that [...] the desire to pay another human being for sex is not regarded as morally neutral?

I think that’s probably the second-most perceptive comment in the thread, though you didn’t intend it that way.  I think that’s why the sex-as-commodity arguments have been failing to find approval.  Purchasing a sexual experience is not seen as the same as purchasing the services of a maid or plumber because a sexual experience is seen as being more intimate and meaningful.  There is no concept of purchasing a sexual experience merely for the sensations of pleasure; it simply must be about having something more, either in a darkly evil sense of power and control over the provider, or arguably a more positive one of intimacy and socialization (however fake) with another human being.  It can’t simply be about curiosity about the act or as a mere physical release, because shut up that’s why, and besides there’s always Rosy Palm.  Therefore QED purchasing sex must be a moral failure, and anyone (presumptively male) who does purchase sex is a moral leper.

If I said, “Most of the men who seek out prostitutes for sex do so because they actually enjoy and/or prefer paying for sex and this is neither right nor wrong,” would the john-defenders admit the obvious?

For some value of “most.”  Amanda asserts most=all.

“If that’s your actual argument, then you wouldn’t mention the fact that there was other sex potentially available.”

I didn’t say anything about other sex potentially available, unless you’re referring to masturbation.  You must be thinking of someone else.

The argument I presented is specifically against the claim that we have to have prostitution because OMG ugly menz can’t get laid.  I reject that argument.  No one has a right to get laid. 

That’s it. 

And just because middleage thinks I’m misusing the word doesn’t mean I am.  He started off making the claim and then wanders off without explaining it, merely saying “but if two people want to blah blah blah.”  In the future with rainbow unicorn sex work available, maybe no sex workers want to have sex with ugly guy X.  He’s still out of luck.  Not fucked.  Un screwed.

Claiming I think sex work should never exist anywhere is unfounded. 

The problem is, sex work today is sexist, patriarchal, usually damaging to the sex worker as well as propping up ideas about sex that are harmful to women.  I don’t want that kind of sex work to continue.  If we could have rainbow unicorn sex work instead, fine.  We don’t.

Can you list exactly what you think the “same” arguments are between here and the religious right?  Maybe someone would take a crack at it if you did.  Just saying “it stinks in here tell me it doesn’t” is non-answerable.

I do so love the conflation of feminists who’d like to do away with the notion of women as consumable goods with the religious right. Go ahead and ignore all the economic and social oppression that makes prostitution happen, and the fact that sex with a prostitute isn’t really “sex with” at all since she obviously wouldn’t be there if it didn’t mean she could pay her electric bill. We’ll just pretend all arguments against prostitution is just the happy hookers and jovial Johns being oppressed by the purity and abstinence set. It’s simpler that way.

Dilan,

Nobody has the right to sex.  Also, if there are unfuckable guys, there are unfuckable gals, too.  Neither one has the right to treat another person, as a masturbatory aid.

Also, it is a bullshit strawman to say this is the same as teenagers/unmarried persons having sex.  I have no problem with mutual sexual desire.  I do have a problem with buying what is meant to be a mutual (or group, as I was corrected above re: orgies) such that the money substitutes for having a mutually desired experience. 

middleagedliberal,

It’s kind of like believing that it would be okay to sell yourself into slavery/indentured servitude, but that it would not be okay to buy a slave/indentured servant.  Do you think Americans who sold themselves into indentured servitude to get to America are “bad”?  Do you not see the difference between selling yourself out of economic need and what have you, and buying another person?  It is the buyer who is in the position to treat another person unethically, not the seller.

liberalrob,

In some world, or with some small subset of prostitutes, sex may be meaningless, morally neutral friction.  But for most of us, sex with someone we are attracted to who makes an effort to get us off is very different from just letting someone stick it in.  If you read what actual sex workers have to say about the “sex” they have, it isn’t pleasant.  It is endured.  It makes them feel bad about themselves.  It isn’t really sexy.  That is one of the ways to separate it from sex with people they like.  A bunch of sex workers have said they won’t date men any more who go to prostitutes/strippers.

You really need to think about lived experiences of the receptacles, instead of the purchaser’s intentions.

Willful blindness is not morality.

PS—Just because some of the sex workers say it really isn’t a problem doesn’t mean it really isn’t a problem.  How does the buyer know which type of sex worker he is getting?  They are all going to pretend that it doesn’t matter/is sexy, because otherwise, it is bad for business.

Engage critically.

Purchasing a sexual experience is not seen as the same as purchasing the services of a maid or plumber because a sexual experience is seen as being more intimate and meaningful.  There is no concept of purchasing a sexual experience merely for the sensations of pleasure; it simply must be about having something more, either in a darkly evil sense of power and control over the provider, or arguably a more positive one of intimacy and socialization (however fake) with another human being.  It can’t simply be about curiosity about the act or as a mere physical release, because shut up that’s why, and besides there’s always Rosy Palm.  Therefore QED purchasing sex must be a moral failure, and anyone (presumptively male) who does purchase sex is a moral leper.
Comment #248: liberalrob on 09/10 at 02:48 PM

Oh yeah, women and their demands that sex be all about the love.<eyeroll>

No, actually, it’s that while you can be a maid and not enjoy being a maid, it’s really different from being a sex worker and not want to have someone’s dick shoved down your throat and yet not only have it shoved down your throat, you have to pretend you like it, and pretend you enjoy gagging.  Just because you need to make the rent and we’ve got a ten percent unemployment rate going on.

So you put up with these guys who enjoy the fact that they don’t have to think of you as a human being.  That’s what “convenience” means!  Not that the sex worker lives a block closer to them than their girlfriend, or is available when the wife is not, or takes American Express.

It’s the same desire to press a button and get the girl to do what you want that fills the wallets of the pick up artist personalities.  No need to deal with individuals, no need to clutter your life with consideration for fellow human beings.  Follow this formula.

I mean, if being a sex worker is no different from being a maid or a dentist or a lawyer, why are you not a sex worker?  It’s good money and easy.  Why aren’t you sucking dicks for a living?  Why not encourage your friends, relatives, male and female, to do it? 

Your kids should do it to work their way through college.  Your wife or girlfriend should do it for a little extra money for the holidays.  You want extra money to go towards buying that boat, or a new car?  Really, it’s not a big deal, suck some dicks.

@254 No way! That would be degrading!

In some world, or with some small subset of prostitutes, sex may be meaningless, morally neutral friction.

I won’t claim to have any data to back this up, but, based on anecdotes I’ve read, seeing sex as meaningless friction seems highly correlated with childhood sexual abuse or other valid reasons to have fucked up attitudes toward sex.  And many female sex workers have pasts rife with sexual abuse.

To my mind, at least, feeling nothing about sex raises the same warning signals as not feeling anything at all.  The latter is correlated with severe clinical depression.

No, actually, it’s that while you can be a maid and not enjoy being a maid, it’s really different from being a sex worker and not want to have someone’s dick shoved down your throat and yet not only have it shoved down your throat, you have to pretend you like it, and pretend you enjoy gagging.

OK, and this is any different from Catherine MacKinnon’s description of NON-compensated heterosexual sex how, exactly? And this is any different than Anna Nicole Smith sucking the dick of her 90 year old rich husband how, exactly?

Look, we either trust women and give them agency over their sex lives, while policing abuses, or we decide we know better and impose our values and say that women can’t engage in acts that they believe are beneficial to them because there’s something all mystical and mystifying about people’s bodies. The latter is exactly what the religious right says. It’s depressing to see a lot of feminists say it too.

I do have a problem with buying what is meant to be a mutual (or group, as I was corrected above re: orgies) such that the money substitutes for having a mutually desired experience.

You might want to think about WHY you have this problem. And why it matters that you have this problem, any more than it matters that a social conservative thinks that prostitution is contrary to God’s design or separates sex from reproduction.

In other words, why your view should prevail over a sex worker who does freely decide that the benefit of sucking some guy’s dick for money outweighs the fact that she wouldn’t decide to do it if he wasn’t paying her. Or why, if it should prevail, it shouldn’t also prevail over any woman’s decision to engage in a sexual act that you might think exploits her. Maybe women shouldn’t be able to consent to give blowjobs to or have anal sex with their boyfriends either, or maybe we shouldn’t allow Anna Nicole Smith to marry her 90 year old husband, or maybe we should throw a woman in jail for sleeping with her boss to get ahead.

@Dilan Esper

I see that you didn’t bother to respond to my critique of one of your reasons why we are all just like the religious right and you response to my other was “nuh-uh,” which I also responded to, but here goes:

Why is not having a mutually desired experience in sex a bad thing?  Because without consent, there is no sex.  No consent = rape.  When you start mucking around with consent or coercing it, you are entering in to sexual assault territory.  To pretend that prostitution (as it exists here, right now) doesn’t fuck around with consent is to be willfully ignorant.

In other words, why your view should prevail over a sex worker who does freely decide that the benefit of sucking some guy’s dick for money outweighs the fact that she wouldn’t decide to do it if he wasn’t paying her.

No one here is arguing that prostitution should be illegal.  I said this before with numbers from the thread but you ignored that: No one.  Not a one.  We are criticizing johns.  We are not saying that paying for sex should be illegal, just that it probably makes you an asshole.  We are not saying that prostitutes or johns shouldn’t be able to make their own decisions (and be all free!), we are saying that the latter make the same decisions as assholes.

YOU seem to be making the assumption that being an asshole should be illegal.  It is a really weird assumption.

Look, we either trust women and give them agency over their sex lives, while policing abuses, or we decide we know better and impose our values

It’s not like the only options here are to either ban all sex work entirely or to give all johns a gold star for being such great citizens.  A more nuanced approach is possible.

Dillan, you know what’s really weird? You banging on about punishing WOMEN’s behaviour when the rest of us are talking about what MEN do and why we find it repulsive (even those of us don’t think it should be illegal). Nobody on this whole thread has been judgemental or moralistic about sex workers.

Why don’t you do as oldfeminist suggests and go suck some dicks? Serious question.

Why is not having a mutually desired experience in sex a bad thing?  Because without consent, there is no sex.  No consent = rape.  When you start mucking around with consent or coercing it, you are entering in to sexual assault territory.  To pretend that prostitution (as it exists here, right now) doesn’t fuck around with consent is to be willfully ignorant.

This is actually very bad reasoning. Lots of things “fuck around” with consent. You think Anna Nicole Smith’s husband offering her a gillion dollar estate doesn’t fuck around with consent? You think people don’t attempt elaborate schemes to “persuade” other people to have sex that fuck around with consent? You think that the power dynamics in offices and workplaces don’t fuck around with consent?

Only a small portion of the universe sex is actually consensual, if you define it as “freely given affirmative consent with no strings attached, no disparities in power, no ulterior motives, and no non-sexual considerations being taken into account in the consent process”. So then you are at all sex (or almost all sex) being rape, which is Catherine MacKinnon’s position.

However, for all sorts of very good reasons (the most important of which is that it actually denies a woman the agency to actually consent to sex on her terms), we don’t run our railroad that way. Except when it comes to prostitution. We say that lots of things that can “fuck around with consent” without formally vitiating it are perfectly permissible, except this one thing that is icky to a lot of feminists and social conservatives.

It’s not like the only options here are to either ban all sex work entirely or to give all johns a gold star for being such great citizens.  A more nuanced approach is possible.

Of course it is. But I am seeing very little nuance here. Part of the concept of “nuance” is the idea that you can’t simply apply a broad generalization to every action that falls within a particular category, with no regard for individual motivations which can be better or worse in particular situations.

And by the way, I have no interest in giving “gold stars” to any johns.

Dillan, you know what’s really weird? You banging on about punishing WOMEN’s behaviour when the rest of us are talking about what MEN do and why we find it repulsive (even those of us don’t think it should be illegal). Nobody on this whole thread has been judgemental or moralistic about sex workers.

1. It takes two to tango. Going after one side of the prostitution transaction infringes the interests of both parties. 2. Your arguments apply equally to gay and gigolo prostitution. 3. The attitudes expressed about sex workers (and disabled people) are incredibly paternalistic, the same sorts of arguments that religious right types use to deny choices. Oh, they don’t really want to engage in that action. Oh, it’s just a bunch of creeps. Oh, they all feel used.

Again, this is EXACTLY the same thing religious conservatives say about teenage girls who are sexually active. It’s a big-time denial of female agency.

The attitudes expressed about sex workers (and disabled people) are incredibly paternalistic

Your attitude toward the “poor, pitiable, unfuckable” disabled is more paternalistic than anything else I’ve seen on this thread.

“I think that’s probably the second-most perceptive comment in the thread, though you didn’t intend it that way.”
Comment #248: liberalrob on 09/10 at 02:48 PM

Yeah. I don’t know if you meant this to read in a condescending manner or if it’s just another example of the limitations of written communication. If you didn’t then please be aware that it comes across that way. I meant exactly what I wrote and you’re not in a position to tell me how it was intended. Also, you failed to answer the question.

If the issue of morality and/or perceptions of morality were removed from the equation and all other issues had been addressed -for example the myth of the “unfuckable” john- then what about Amanda’s premise falls down?

I move through a lot of different social circles. And in some of the least “enlightened” regarding progressive politics and modern feminism there are plenty of guys who willingly and unabashedly admit that men who like to pay for sex like to pay for sex.  They could have sex without paying; they’d rather pay. They give lots of reasons why it’s easier or better – everything from wanting to avoid “gold-diggers” (hilarious, when you think about it), to getting exactly the kinds of acts/performance that they want, to not feeling like dealing with the emotional hassle of being in a relationship.

Okay.

Forget, for a moment, about whether or not these are moral or immoral positions. Their preference is to have sex without having to deal with the desires of the woman involved. And they like having sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with them. They like it. That’s their preference. If you can concede that most johns (maybe not all) are following some variation of this theme then what about Amanda’s premise, exactly, is incorrect?

An even better question would be how can you seriously “sit” in a room full of feminists and argue that a man who wants to have sex with a woman without being bothered by what she may or may not want in a sexual encounter should be considered morally neutral? I’m not even talking about abuse, trafficking, pimps, potential “dark” power tripping and all of the other issues that go along with many forms of prostitution.

You’re scolding a bunch of self-proclaimed feminists for not thinking that woman as “fuck-hole” is really just fine. Why? Complaining that Amanda just can’t see it your way is silly.

We say that lots of things that can “fuck around with consent” without formally vitiating it are perfectly permissible, except this one thing that is icky to a lot of feminists and social conservatives.

It’s not just this one thing.  Most feminists are in favor of enthusiastic consent as a bare minimum in all cases.  I see similar conversations occur when other cases are raised, like, for example, when one party is inebriated, or when one party assumed consent when it was never explicitly given. 

And I would like to point out that the counter argument in all these cases takes the same general form as what we see above: it’s unfair to judge all men who do this because some of them really truly can’t get unpaid/sober/enthusiastic women to have sex with them, and they really don’t mean any harm other than wanting to have sex with a woman who probably didn’t really want to have sex with them.

“Because it’s a stereotypically feminine behavior, and therefore demeaning and, among men, the exclusive millieu of homosexhuals, so they won’t stoop to such a thing even if it means that they get more heterosex with attractive women as a result.”

Comment #241: Selena777 on 09/10 at 02:07 PM

Is this really it? I don’t want to be dismissive but I’m presuming you’re female and while this is plausible I have to wonder. Someone described telling guys to try harder regarding their appearance as a “slap in the face.” Why?

Is trying to be more conventionally attractive and thus attracting a woman who wants to have sex you emasculating?

Dilan,

I am not saying the woman shouldn’t do it, I am saying that any one who does it to her is not respecting her.  I don’t think people who allow themselves to be mistreated should be punished.

I do think that people should not engage in conduct that denies the humanity of another person.  Full stop.  It is on those people that I put the blame.

And re: trying to tar us with your misrepresentations of MacKinnon’s positions, that’s ludicrous.  I am not stuck with what you say that she says.  And I can tell you for damn sure, I have never been subjected to the type of sexual abuse you describe.  I recognize that is some combination of choosing sex partners wisely (people who respect me) and being lucky.  It is not the same because I am not sleeping with them out of obligation, and they are not treating me as a fucktoy instead of a person.

This is not difficult.

I have a problem with it not because it icks me out, but because if you TALK TO PROSTITUTED PEOPLE, many of them explain that this aspect of the transaction harms them.  That means that for anyone who patronizes a prostitute/sex worker is taking a risk that they are PLAYING INTO SOMEBODY’S SELF HARM, and that the somebody is engaging in self-harm because of financial need or psychological issues.  Let’s say it’s only 60% of sex workers who have that issue.  What ethical person would want to take the 6 out of 10 risk that they are harming someone?  Just because someone lets you harm them/is in denial that they are hurting, does not make it okay.  Just because someone stays in a sexually, physically, or emotionally abusive relationship does not make it okay.

But please, continue to not respond to lived experience arguments.

@Dilan Esper

Only a small portion of the universe sex is actually consensual, if you define it as “freely given affirmative consent with no strings attached, no disparities in power, no ulterior motives, and no non-sexual considerations being taken into account in the consent process”. So then you are at all sex (or almost all sex) being rape, which is Catherine MacKinnon’s position.

However, for all sorts of very good reasons (the most important of which is that it actually denies a woman the agency to actually consent to sex on her terms), we don’t run our railroad that way. Except when it comes to prostitution. We say that lots of things that can “fuck around with consent” without formally vitiating it are perfectly permissible, except this one thing that is icky to a lot of feminists and social conservatives.

But, once again, no one here has said they favor prostitution remaining illegal.  No one.  Fucking around with consent happens and we cannot police every occurrence of it, but guys who get off on fucking around with consent are assholes.  Guys who seek it out and pay money for the joy of fucking around with consent seem to be attracted to the diminished consent.

You seem to have a really strange view of rights, but I am going to see if I can figure it out.

Men pay for sex with prostitutes.  Your claim is that they have a right to do this.  You see a denial of this right on the thread.  Is it because:

1) Tea Party-style: Criticizing the way a person chooses to exercise a right is the same as violating that right?

2) Women are Objects-style: Men have a right to sex, thus any interference in their obtaining sex denies them their rights?

3) Libertarian-style: Any regulation on a right is wrong, and so the legalization argued for in this thread is actually not really legalization?

4) Sex is a Right Like No Other-Style: The right to have sex means that if somewhat wants sex, then they must be able to get it as the right to have sex in the abstract cannot be distinguished from the right to have sex with an individual?

No one here is anti-sex no matter how much you may want us to be.  Do you mind responding to the point you made yesterday about how apparently we all think women can be “ruined” because I think your comment revealed more about you than about us, but perhaps I misinterpreted it.

And I would like to point out that the counter argument in all these cases takes the same general form as what we see above: it’s unfair to judge all men who do this because some of them really truly can’t get unpaid/sober/enthusiastic women to have sex with them, and they really don’t mean any harm other than wanting to have sex with a woman who probably didn’t really want to have sex with them.

But here’s the thing. The argument doesn’t lead anywhere useful. Alcohol has been used as a lubricant for sexual desire ever since it was first discovered. I think that men who use alcohol to try and get unconsenting women to consent are jerks. But what are you going to do, other than police the extreme cases (date rape drugs, sex with a woman who is too intoxicated to consent), tell men they shouldn’t do that sort of thing, and tell women to be on the lookout for guys who want to do that and that there are safer ways to conduct your life than to get plastered so that you are willing to consent to sex that you won’t remember in the morning anyway?

I mean, we could go back to prohibition, or ban men buying women drinks, or whatever, but it doesn’t seem to me that there’s much that can be done about it.

And here’s why: because much as we would like to live in a world where all consent to sex is totally voluntary and free not only from explicit coercion but from implicit forms of it as well, it’s impossible to actually write consent rules that get us to that world. Because in the real world, people get drunk and want to have sex. Because in the real world, even after you eliminate the trafficking, people still want to pay for sex or be paid for it. Because in the real world, some people will want to sleep with their bosses to get ahead or marry a gazillionaire geezer.

Believe it or not, every first year criminal law course in every law school in the country deals with this issue when they talk about rape law. And by the way, we’ve made great progress in shoring up the consent requirement in rape law from where we were in 1950! But there’s only so much you can do, and at some point you just can’t get people to act the way they ought to act.

But further, I would also argue that there actually is a difference-in-kind between paid for sex and plying a woman with alcohol to get her to consent. Is paid-for-sex always and forevermore an overbearing of a woman’s will? Is it completely impossible to conceive of a woman (or a man) deciding that having sex with someone will confer a benefit that is worth whatever she/he perceives the cost to be? And as for the men, I have tried to point out that there are lots of at least potential examples of reasons that men or women might have sex with prostitutes that don’t analogize to the man plying a woman with alcohol to get into her pants. You folks don’t like those examples. I get that. But that doesn’t mean that those people are in the same category as some near-date-rapist at the bar!

And finally, there’s a difference about consent that really is fundamentally different from the alcohol-plying man. If a woman says to a man “I will fuck you if you give me $200”, the terms of the consent are clear and explicit. It may share with the drinking scenario the aspect of “I wouldn’t fuck you otherwise”, but nonetheless, why, exactly, is “I will fuck you if you give me $200” not a form of consent for sex? What about that statement is the same as a woman who refuses to have sex when she is sober then having her own judgment overridden by alcohol? Did I miss the economics class where it was taught that money is the same thing as a chemical depressant?

I have a problem with it not because it icks me out, but because if you TALK TO PROSTITUTED PEOPLE, many of them explain that this aspect of the transaction harms them.  That means that for anyone who patronizes a prostitute/sex worker is taking a risk that they are PLAYING INTO SOMEBODY’S SELF HARM, and that the somebody is engaging in self-harm because of financial need or psychological issues.

This is true of anyone who seeks out casual sex in any venue.

Men pay for sex with prostitutes.  Your claim is that they have a right to do this.  You see a denial of this right on the thread.  Is it because

None of the above. Rather, it is because rather than simply arguing “prostitution often leads to abuse”, which I said is a legitimate empirical argument, we have arguments that all men who go to prostitutes go for reason X and are the equivalent of rapists (without any hard evidence that this is true), arguments that any exchange of sex for money, but no other exchange, vitiates consent, arguments that sex work defiles and debases its participants without regard to whether this is actually always true, arguments that could apply equally to many other forms of sex being applied ONLY to prostitution, and repeats of the religious right’s condemnation of various forms of sex dressed up in feminist clothing.

Finally, at least some of the posters DID argue for criminalizing johns but not prostitutes, which is a form of making prostitution illegal.

“But here’s the thing. The argument doesn’t lead anywhere useful. Alcohol has been used as a lubricant for sexual desire ever since it was first discovered. I think that men who use alcohol to try and get unconsenting women to consent are jerks. But what are you going to do, other than police the extreme cases (date rape drugs, sex with a woman who is too intoxicated to consent), tell men they shouldn’t do that sort of thing, and tell women to be on the lookout for guys who want to do that and that there are safer ways to conduct your life than to get plastered so that you are willing to consent to sex that you won’t remember in the morning anyway?”

This is why feminists push the standard of enthusiastic consent.  If there are doubts, and you want to be ethical, you shouldn’t fuck the person you have doubts about.  Because you care about not hurting them.  Some of that conduct you describe is flat-out illegal.  More of it is flat-out immoral. 

It actually happened to a man I dated.  He probably was not sufficiently intoxicated to make it sexual assault, but I don’t care.  I don’t like to see *anybody* mistreated in that way.  *She* was a bad person, as were the friends that set him up.

Does that mean that having sex with someone who has had alcohol is not okay?  No.  It means that trying to use alcohol or *anything* to manipulate someone makes that person a shitty person.  So yes, I will say that people who try to get others to have sex with them who do not want to have sex with them by encouraging them to lower their inhibitions are bad people.  I have no problem with making that moral judgment.  Now, wanting to sleep with someone after they are drinking or you are drinking isn’t problematic per se, but just requires the knowledge that the person is impaired, so special care should be taken to communicate.

Why is “first do no harm” such a radical idea when it comes to how we treat other people, whether in the sexual or any other interpersonal arena?

@Dilan Esper

Actually, you picked reason 1: criticism of how/why men exercise a right is the same as denying that right. 

Finally, at least some of the posters DID argue for criminalizing johns but not prostitutes, which is a form of making prostitution illegal.

Where?  I think there may have been one comment that noted that as long as prostitution remains illegal, it makes more sense to penalize the johns than the prostitutes, but looking through the thread again, it appears that comment was made by you.

No, Dilan, it is not the same as NSA sex.  If you read the lived experience of men and women who seek out NSA sex, a far larger number of them are happy with NSA sex than prostitutes/sex workers are with purchased sex.  And frankly, a person seeking NSA sex, if they are sexually ethical, should try to not take up with partners who seem to be engaging in self-harm.

If you really think NSA sex is that bad, you should be encouraging Johns not to go to prostitutes also, because *they* are engaging in self-harm.  But I’ve never seen you make that argument.

But the power dynamic is different.  It is like the difference between a stranger in a bar telling me I have nice tits, and my boss telling me I have nice tits.  I need my boss to like me because I need money from him to live.  I need to balance my self, my personhood, against money.  I don’t need person in bar in the same way.

If you ever turned up here except in the threads where you howl at women for expressing opinions about sex and men who pay for it, and defend johns who pay to be able to ignore women’s opinions about sex and themselves, you’d know that Pandagon is very, very consistent in endorsing enthusiastic consent.

Yes, as the world stands, a lot of sex is not enthusiastically consented to. That is bad. We want to change things (as is kind of implied by words like “progressive”) because sex should be fun, and sexual coercion is bad (“icky”, if you will). The terrible, rights-infringing things Amanda has done to bring about a sex-hating dystopia where people enjoy sex include: blogging about it; writing books; pointing out that people who don’t care about enthusiastic consent are assholes. You are not being oppressed. You are being criticised.

Comment #269: Dilan Esper on 09/10 at 04:54 PM:

we have arguments that all men who go to prostitutes go for reason X and are the equivalent of rapists (without any hard evidence that this is true),

Most men who have sex with sex workers could have sex with someone else, by their own admission.  They like the idea having sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with them.  Is that their primary reason for having sex with a sex worker?  Maybe not.  But they share that characteristic with rapists.  By definition.

arguments that any exchange of sex for money, but no other exchange, vitiates consent,

False, unless you think everyone here doesn’t believe there is such a thing as rape at gunpoint—“I won’t kill you if you have sex with me”.

arguments that sex work defiles and debases its participants without regard to whether this is actually always true,

None of us said it was always true, but from the testimony of sex workers, it is very often true, to the point that patronizing only a few sex workers will pretty much guarantee you’ve defiled and debased someone, and you can’t even tell who it was, probably, because acting like it isn’t is part of their jobs.  If they let you know they hated it, they’d lose their totally crappy sex work job.

arguments that could apply equally to many other forms of sex being applied ONLY to prostitution,

This is about “golddiggers”, right? 

Being a “golddigger” can be corrosive to your psyche.  Living your life for a man because he has money and power, ignoring your own desires and needs for him, is fucked up.  No one here would argue that. 

It’s part of a patriarchy-fueled continuum.  None of it is good.  Why do we have to talk about every part of the spectrum when we’re saying, “this is why patronizing sex workers is a problem”?

and repeats of the religious right’s condemnation of various forms of sex dressed up in feminist clothing.

You’ve still not bothered to give a concrete example here.  Characterization is not proof.

because sex should be fun, and sexual coercion is bad (“icky”, if you will).

Penetrative sex when you’re not physically aroused to some degree is also, you know, physically painful in ways that vary from irritating to chafing to a lot worse, depending.  Not always for everybody, but for most people most of the time.

Any thoughts on that, Dilan, or any of the other dudes who pretend to belive dry sex is a totally neutral physical experience for the woman involved?  Or do you think that’s a totally reasonable occupational hazard?  Minor vaginal tears for prostitutes, just like lower back pain for desk workers?

@253

“Just because some of the sex workers say it really isn’t a problem doesn’t mean it really isn’t a problem.  How does the buyer know which type of sex worker he is getting?  They are all going to pretend that it doesn’t matter/is sexy, because otherwise, it is bad for business.”

Exactly. Purchasing sex ethically isn’t possible in our current cultural-economic system.

we have arguments that all men who go to prostitutes go for reason X and are the equivalent of rapists (without any hard evidence that this is true)

See #46, 54 (and accompanying comments), 220.

This also, to Dilan:  Are you not aware that prostitutes would, in a safe and regulated context, be entirely able to say No to any john who strikes them as too unpleasant, dangerous, or physically repulsive to be worth the job?  The whole notion of unfuckable men needing an outlet sort of falls on its face when you admit that prostitutes have the same rights to pick and choose and say No as any other women. 

The whole concept of prostitution as a last-ditch safety valve for the least attractive men in society rests on the assumption that are not allowed to say no.  A steak can’t say No if you want to eat it as long as your money’s good, but a woman can say No no matter how many other men she’s said yes to for fifty bucks already.  Brothels and madams do have blacklists. 

Speaking of money, who will fuck the utterly destitute, Dilan, who can’t afford even the cheapest blowjob going?  Where is your concern for the poorest of the poor, priced out of the vagina market?  If poor men can’t afford to buy a fuck, gosh, that just doesn’t seem fair.

The only way to institute a social system where any man, no matter how loathsome and lonely, can access a vagina, is to permit rape.  Prostitution alone just won’t do it; you need slavery.  Sorry!

No, Dilan, it is not the same as NSA sex.  If you read the lived experience of men and women who seek out NSA sex, a far larger number of them are happy with NSA sex than prostitutes/sex workers are with purchased sex.  And frankly, a person seeking NSA sex, if they are sexually ethical, should try to not take up with partners who seem to be engaging in self-harm.

What are you going to do, make her fill out a questionnaire after picking her up at the bar?

Sex is a MESS. It really is. People entangle lots of emotions into it. Consent is a hard issue, especially given that even a lot of formally consensual sex has all sorts of coercive elements buried into it. (And by the way, I don’t get my Dworkin and MacKinnon wrong—that is EXACTLY their argument and they were/are right about it.) Plus, you have all the gendered expectations and societal sexism and the patriarchy bundled into it.

But that’s the point—you can’t really pick out this one type of sex and say it’s uniquely a mess in the way that the rest of the sexual universe isn’t.

@Dilan Esper

But that’s the point—you can’t really pick out this one type of sex and say it’s uniquely a mess in the way that the rest of the sexual universe isn’t.

The only person doing so is you.  This is a thread about prostitution so talking about prostitution is on topic.  It doesn’t mean that all other sex is peachy-keen or that we don’t care/have opinions about other issues.

You think (and we agree):

I think that men who use alcohol to try and get unconsenting women to consent are jerks.

We think that (predominately) men who visit prostitutes are assholes.  We see these two things as being related (and so nothing really “unique” about either).

Are you not aware that prostitutes would, in a safe and regulated context, be entirely able to say No to any john who strikes them as too unpleasant, dangerous, or physically repulsive to be worth the job?  The whole notion of unfuckable men needing an outlet sort of falls on its face when you admit that prostitutes have the same rights to pick and choose and say No as any other women.

Absolutely. But I would reply with something which doesn’t seem to be acknowledged here. OFTEN, men and women make all sorts of compromises in determining whether to consent to sex. Some are odious, like the woman who is being semi-coerced by her boyfriend or date and decides to go through with it because it’s too much trouble to turn him down. Some are not horribly harmful, such as the wife who isn’t really into oral sex but freely offers a blowjob to her husband because he graduated from law school. (Don’t laugh—I actually heard a story of a woman doing this!)

The point is, you have to show why MONEY (and specifically a transactional payment of money, because “gold digging” (a term I was trying to avoid using but which someone else used) is also a form of trade of money for sex) is somehow different than the other sorts of barter that surrounds sexuality, unless you believe that any barter at all is illegitimate and worthy of condemnation. And if any barter at all is illegitimate and worthy of condemnation, than lots of sex falls within the scope of that, not just soliciting of prostitution.

And I still think you all are making the religious right’s arguments for them. As I said, sexuality in the real world is really complicated. There’s a lot of mixed motives. There’s a lot of tepid desire combined with other reasons why people consent to things. There’s a lot of trading off sex in various ways. That’s a really, really good reason for enforcing a standard level of consent and then just letting people (especially women) muddle through and make their own choices. And I think that actually you all do when the issue isn’t prostitution.

That isn’t, by the way, inconsistent with holding enthusiastic consent out there as the ideal. But it’s a recognition that in a free society, people are sometimes going to have sex with people they aren’t enthusiastic about fucking. It’s not a fixable problem, even with maximal consciousness raising it’s not going to change that much, and going after prostitutes OR johns isn’t going to fix it. (It’s also, in the end, not much different from many other exploitative things that we agree to do with our bodies for various reasons. Are those Chilean coal miners who are trapped in that mine being exploited for money? Are they being asked to endure something, for money, that is comparable to sex work? At the very least! Why are their bodies and their suffering subject to the same analysis as prostitution. And if the answer is, well, there’s something different about sex, then you are back in religious right territory.)

Let’s not pretend that being able to discern whether somebody actually enthusiastically wants to have sex with you is all that difficult. It isn’t.

Dilan,

It is called paying attention to your partner, whether male or female, and seeing if they are responding enthusiastically to sex.  If they seem to freeze, go on autopilot, cry, throw back several drinks just prior to the sex act (we’re talking about slamming shots here), engage in any behavior that I don’t understand, etc., etc., I would ask them if they were okay.  This would almost be more true with a new partner or an NSA partner than an established partner, because with a new partner they may have more difficulty communicating/I may have more difficulty understanding.

And please, quote from MacKinnon instead of paraphrasing.  I took a class from the woman.  As far out as her views may be, they aren’t as far as you’re pushing them.

Plus, as someone already pointed out upthread, just because you can point to other points on the sexual congress continuum that raise the same issues as prostitution doesn’t mean that prostitution isn’t problematic, and isn’t more problematic.

I already explained what is more problematic, which is that people have to go along with sexually abusive behavior and pretend it is not abusive to get money *which they need.*  And if you listen to the accounts of these people, whether male or female, many of them describe it as being damaging to themselves.  No one should willingly participate in hurting another person. 

You mention other sorts of financially uneven unions.  Fine.  That suggests that in any sexual act, the person with more power should be aware of that power and not use it to hurt someone.  That does not suggest that prostitutes are not more harmed than the average person.  If you look at the PTSD symptoms and histories of childhood abuse, they clearly are.

And your religioius right argument isn’t sticking.  You’re still just characterizing.  I’m not against purchasing prostitutes because sexuality is bad.  I’m against purchasing prostitutes because it hurts many of them, in very profound ways, and it also permits humans to profoundly disrespect the agency and humanity of other people and anyone who does that is a bad person.

No shit not everyone will follow the enthusiastic consent model.  But they are bad insensitive people.  That behavior should be punished and explained as abnormal as much as possible.  You have no idea how *heartbreaking* it can be to talk to discuss *bad sex* or *not rape* with men or women who have experienced it.  A lot of times, because of the norms of consent (I did it, I stopped saying no, he didn’t bruise me, I could have pushed her off) people are unable to say what they really believe when given support, which is, they were mistreated, they did not deserve it, what happened was not normal and not okay, and the other person was bad for doing it to them.

people are unable to say what they really believe *until* given support, which is, they were mistreated, they did not deserve it, what happened was not normal and not okay, and the other person was bad for doing it to them.
(fixed)

@Ismone

Very well said.

Dilan, you seem to be confusing “sexual harm is among the most serious types of harm” (the feminist POV) and “sex outside of a very special relationship like love and ideally marriage is harmful” (the religious right’s POV).  I don’t know if you’re doing it intentionally or not.  But they are very different concepts indeed.  None of us says that sexual harm is confined only to sex work. 

You furthermore argue that since sex is complicated and on a continuum, there’s nowhere to draw a line between total absolute equals in a lusty relationship and a sex worker doing things that cause her nightmares to avoid being beaten by a pimp. 

If you really believe so, then why not go all the way to slavery?  What’s different about sex work other than degree?  Why do you assign all values the “good” end rather than the “bad” one?

What exactly makes something slavery?  Someone living in a place where there’s literally only one place to work, where there are no laws, is s/he a slave?  A person born to chattel slavery?  A person forced by circumstance to indenture him/herself?  A child forced to do homework?  A US citizen forced to fill out tax forms?

When does blue become green?  Cyan?  Teal?  Emerald?  Where do you draw that line?

If you can select a point somewhere along that continuum, then you’ve basically destroyed your own argument that since something is similar to something else, it’s the same and you can’t distinguish the two.

oldfeminist@254:

I mean, if being a sex worker is no different from being a maid or a dentist or a lawyer, why are you not a sex worker?  It’s good money and easy.  Why aren’t you sucking dicks for a living?  Why not encourage your friends, relatives, male and female, to do it?

I think the market for my talents in that area would be vanishingly small.  As for anyone else, I don’t judge what they decide to do for a living as long as it’s not hurting people.  But let’s not make this about me, right?

Your kids should do it to work their way through college.  Your wife or girlfriend should do it for a little extra money for the holidays.  You want extra money to go towards buying that boat, or a new car?  Really, it’s not a big deal, suck some dicks.

I believe this is indeed the strategy of some providers, plus or minus some of the exaggerated dirty language being used for shock value.

nobitron@263:

I meant exactly what I wrote and you’re not in a position to tell me how it was intended. Also, you failed to answer the question.

I’m past caring whether people think I’m being condescending.  That term has been so twisted and overused that it no longer has any meaning other than “you refuse to accept the irresistible logic of my argument.”  Call me condescending, call me a troll, whatevs.  Been there done that.  I think I know what you intended with your question; you were trying to get people to admit that some/many/most johns pay for sex simply because they like to.  I wanted to talk about something else that your question indirectly applied to, because I know that answering your question as posed is ultimately pointless; that discussion is going nowhere.  And for what it’s worth, I did answer your question.  Look again at the last sentence of #248:  for some values of “most,” yes, it is almost certainly true.  But there is a gap of indeterminate size between saying “most” and “all,” and Amanda denies that any such gap exists.  All johns are scumbags, she’s said it over and over.  No exceptions.  How much clearer can she be?

Complaining that Amanda just can’t see it your way is silly.

I think that’s pretty much what I said right off the bat to zifnab and Middleagedliberal…I’m not complaining, I’m stating a fact.  This whole thread has happened before, and all the arguments are exactly the same.  Nothing has changed.  Dilan can bang his head against the wall for 100 more comments and nothing will change.

more for nobitron@263

If the issue of morality and/or perceptions of morality were removed from the equation and all other issues had been addressed -for example the myth of the “unfuckable” john- then what about Amanda’s premise falls down?

The “myth of the unfuckable john” is part and parcel of Amanda’s premise, so you can’t “address” it separately.  Her premise is that there is no such animal, and that therefore all johns are scumbags who are in it for the power trip.  Her premise is a generalization that I see as simply unsupportable without a whole bunch of assumptions about male sexuality and psychological makeup that are not in evidence, except as anecdotal evidence amassed through surveys (at best) and her own experience.  Of course there are many studies to cite about how some men think one way or another, or act one way or another; but even those studies I would suspect are not conclusively and definitively applicable to every individual.  Everyone is unique.

Forget, for a moment, about whether or not these are moral or immoral positions. Their preference is to have sex without having to deal with the desires of the woman involved. And they like having sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with them. They like it. That’s their preference. If you can concede that most johns (maybe not all) are following some variation of this theme then what about Amanda’s premise, exactly, is incorrect?

But “they” are not “all johns,” and Amanda’s premise is very definitely “all johns.”  If Amanda won’t concede “maybe not all” why should I?  I’m not even sure I can concede “most johns.”  My personal experience from observing what johns talk about on messageboards for over a decade has turned up very very few instances of a john who clearly and forthrightly liked to have sex with someone they know doesn’t want to have sex with them, and those were always in the context of being given “bad service” (not that that’s acceptable, of course).  As a general rule, it is a matter of indifference to them whether the provider wants to have sex with them or not (most admit they know it’s usually fake); the important thing is giving the impression that they do want it, and that’s the basis on which the provider is judged as good or bad at their job.  The entire experience is seen as a business transaction.  For a good number of them, it appears that giving pleasure as well as receiving it is equal in importance in having a good session; something that seems completely counter to what Amanda contends drives all these men, unless wanting to give the provider pleasure is also just a power trip. 

But again, I’m not a credible source so everything I’ve seen and read over the past ten years is meaningless.  Besides, it could all be lies.  In fact, it must be, right?

we either trust women and give them agency over their sex lives, while policing abuses, or we decide we know better and impose our values

Awwww. Dilan wants to protect the rights of hot women to have sex with him for money to pay their rent.

He’s a giver like that.

Ismone@266:

That means that for anyone who patronizes a prostitute/sex worker is taking a risk that they are PLAYING INTO SOMEBODY’S SELF HARM, and that the somebody is engaging in self-harm because of financial need or psychological issues.

That is a far superior argument against prostitution (as it currently exists) than claiming that it’s bad because all johns are power-mad assholes a priori.  There’s a real issue there.

Dilan,

“It’s also, in the end, not much different from many other exploitative things that we agree to do with our bodies for various reasons. Are those Chilean coal miners who are trapped in that mine being exploited for money? Are they being asked to endure something, for money, that is comparable to sex work? At the very least! Why are their bodies and their suffering subject to the same analysis as prostitution. And if the answer is, well, there’s something different about sex, then you are back in religious right territory.”

This may be the most disingenuous thing you’ve said so far.  What makes you think the people on this thread who are criticizing prostitution would not also criticize other forms of economic exploitation?  Both scenarios are exploitative and harmful.  The reason people aren’t talking about harm done to miners and factory workers is because this thread happens to be about prostitution.  Christ.

@liberalrob

That means that for anyone who patronizes a prostitute/sex worker is taking a risk that they are PLAYING INTO SOMEBODY’S SELF HARM, and that the somebody is engaging in self-harm because of financial need or psychological issues.

That is a far superior argument against prostitution (as it currently exists) than claiming that it’s bad because all johns are power-mad assholes a priori.  There’s a real issue there.

But there is no way, in this day and age, to claim that men who pay for sex don’t know that on some level.  They can lie to themselves all they want and justify all they want, but if their sexual gratification is more important than refusing to contribute to harming another person, then they are power-mad assholes by definition.

For a good number of them, it appears that giving pleasure as well as receiving it is equal in importance in having a good session; something that seems completely counter to what Amanda contends drives all these men,unless wanting to give the provider pleasure is also just a power trip. 

Um, jesus christ, you think?

They do not want to give her pleasure.  They want her to enact a pantomime of pleasure, which is to say, they want her to do extra. work.  They want to judge her performance not merely by the skillfulness of her actions but by her own private sensations, which cannot possibly be sold and thus she must fake up a display of.  They want to buy more than they are entitled to buy.  Where do you think the old cliche of a hooker not wanting to kiss johns on the mouth comes from?  It comes from the understanding that she gets to keep at least one fucking intimate thing for her own voluntary sex life.  The standard pro-prostitution line is that women aren’t ‘selling themselves’, they’re selling a service.  And it seems like johns really, really can’t handle this—that they only get to buy a performance, not a whole woman. 

There’s a reason that women’s “pleasure” in pornography, as in prostitution, is so ridiculously, hilariously fake.  It’s not just because men apparently like it that way; it’s also because how those women move and vocalise when they’re feeling ACTUAL pleasure is not. your. business. and they, as a class, without ever having had to unionize and take a vote on it, choose not to put it up for sale.

Douchebags who try to get one over you, bully you into discounts or demand goods or services you don’t actually provide, are a wearyingly familiar thing for anyone who’s done retail or restaurant work.  These douchebags are no different when it’s prostitutes they’re trying to get something for nothing from.  So yes, it is a power trip.  Every single time.  If you can’t see that, you desperately need to get a job where you wear a uniform, the quality of your smile comes up in your performance review, and the customer’s always right.  It would broaden your perspective immeasurably.

But “they” are not “all johns,” and Amanda’s premise is very definitely “all johns.”

Okay then. Two out of a hundred thousand Johns hire sex workers they know are under no duress or coercion because they don’t have arms and can’t jack themselves off. Now, about the other 99,998.

My personal experience from observing what johns talk about on messageboards for over a decade has turned up very very few instances of a john who clearly and forthrightly liked to have sex with someone they know doesn’t want to have sex with them, and those were always in the context of being given “bad service” (not that that’s acceptable, of course).  As a general rule, it is a matter of indifference to them whether the provider wants to have sex with them or not (most admit they know it’s usually fake); the important thing is giving the impression that they do want it, and that’s the basis on which the provider is judged as good or bad at their job.  The entire experience is seen as a business transaction.

Well there you go.

After reading all these posts, it comes to mind that the final block quote comment above is the most telling of all.

“As a general rule, it is a matter of indifference to them whether the provider wants to have sex with them or not (most admit they know it’s usually fake); the important thing is giving the impression that they do want it, and that’s the basis on which the provider is judged as good or bad at their job. The entire experience is seen as a business transaction. “

In many ways, that indifference is worse that flat out hate or love or desire or loathing, because, to me, what that says is the johns are NOT SEEING THE PROSTITUTE as a human being.  And I suppose that in many transactions there is a wide variety of “seeing” the service person (a waitress, maid, hair stylist, plumber etc) as fully human or fully worthy of one’s time and respect. Some of us go out of our way to offer coffee to the plumber some of us completely ignore hir until the time comes to pay the bill. Many of us have no idea if the waitress serving us has had a shitty day, or a bad hip or has just been dumped. We want our food, not a relationship with her. I find that nearly as disconcerting as the john/prostitute relationship.  The indifference is what I find horrifying. I know I’m guilty of it.

The difference I see, and one I can’t figure out how or if or if we should adapt past is that a prostitute is offering more or less complete access to many parts of her body, right? The plumber doesn’t. And somehow there is a difference to me and that the men in question want to stick their parts in her parts without really giving a flip if she is faking it or not, or enjoys it or not, that they (anecdotally as a group) are more or less indifferent to the matter only makes me agree with Amanda’s point.

They want to have control over another person’s body for their own enjoyment and for that person’s needs to be subordinate to their own. There may come a day when sex is seen like waitress work for all of us, or maybe men will realize that asking someone to offer up areas that are, at least now, culturally signified as private and vulnerable areas, to be used not for her pleasure or joy but only for his and really not for nearly enough money at that, is not really a very kind thing at the very least. At that point maybe we could see prostitution more in that positive way, like getting to learn a new sexual skill from a professional, or needing a release and being willing to pay a high price and respectful attitude from the sexual therapist you see.  Maybe sacred whores will be sacred at some point.

Being indifferent to whether or not the woman you are using as a human masturbatory aid is into it is pretty gross.

I just want to say, as a long time lurker (first comment!) who has gotten more feminist theory translated into everyday thinking from the wonderful front pagers/commenters on this site than from 4 semesters of women’s studies classes back in the mid 90’s, that I am very grateful for the efforts some of you have gone to (oldfeminist, Ismone, snoobographer, MsPrism and many others) to persistently explain what I understood Amanda’s point to be.  It’s hard to understate the horror I feel at the apparent and appalling lack of understanding of some of the liberal (?) men at this site who are defending a pretty much sociopathic position.  I am immeasurably relieved when I read your wonderful responses to their confused, impaired perspectives on this complicated issue.  I think I read these threads so diligently b/c I have an internalized (IBTP) voice inside me much like what was described above re; who has a right to pleasure and who must suck it up and go without, that makes it difficult to think clearly when reading the comments of these men defending johns.  My healthy brain thanks you for clarifying things so that my IBTP brain must listen with greater care and shut up for a bit. 

Anyway, just wanted to say thank you—you are not speaking into the void.  At least one reader (and I’m *sure* I’m not the only one) gets so much out of reading your responses to classic patriarchal defenses.

Liberalrob @ 242

zif, Middleaged…you’ll never convince Amanda that prostitution is anything but a power trip for all johns.  That’s what she believes.  And since it is impossible to produce any conclusive evidence to the contrary that she will accept, and there are many examples of asshole johns who really do get off on the power trip for her to throw in your face, you’re not going to get anywhere.

Sometimes arguments are like cross-examining an expert witness in court.  It’s often not possible to get the witness to admit the error of his/her views.  The effort is to persuade the audience to see the errors of the witness’ logic or testimony, or at least to give your own side a fair consideration.

I hate it when writers or speakers say what adversaries think or what motivates their actions without any basis whatsoever except for the figments of their imagination.  I hear Limbaugh do it regularly.  He’ll say, “Liberals think X,” or “What liberals really want is Y” and I’ll think that neither I nor any liberal person I know think X or want Y.

So here we have the assertion by Amanda and others that johns in consensual prostitution really want domination.  And the reasons given for this conclusion have nothing to do with empirical evidence, either in the form of observed behaviors or what johns say or write.  Conclusions about what other people want can be legitimately based on what they say they want or, in spite of what they say, on their observed behaviors.  But here the conclusion is based on constructions of logic, sometimes called figments of imagination or more colloquially pulling it out of your ass.

I don’t care a whit about johns.  If you find prostitution disgusting, and the men who partake worse than the women who offer, fine.  You’re apparently among the majority tin North America.  But don’t justify your personal disgust with made up theories about people you’ve made no effort to find out about.  It is a lazy habit of thought just as illegitimate as arguments made by the wingnuts.

Everyone has their blind spots and sacred cows.  And someone is always wrong on the Internet.

So here we have the assertion by Amanda and others that johns in consensual prostitution really want domination. 
Comment #298: MiddleageLiberal on 09/12 at 11:12 PM

You seem to think domination means whips and chains or screaming terror on the part of the sex worker.

That’s not what we’re talking about.

We’re talking about someone doing something that’s normally a cooperative activity, and turning it into one centered around everything they want.  King for a day.

It’s as if someone wanted not just to have a decent day at work, but for any discussion with colleagues at work to be of only token resistance, everyone gets up out of the way when s/he walks by, everyone says what a swell person s/he is, the boss gives hir a raise, s/he doesn’t have to pay for lunch, and so on.

This is not a sane way to deal with sex.  This is not a sane way to deal with a person of the opposite (or appropriate) sex.  We generally think of rich people who do this as shitheads, tyrants, assholes.  We generally think that people treated like this become sick and spoiled.

@MiddleageLiberal

This is from a ways back, but you said

I don’t see the fun in having sex with someone whose reactions to what I’m doing cannot be trusted to be real.  I’m not interested in fake orgasms.

It would stand to reason (and please tell me if this is too great a “generalization” for you) that a man who goes to prostitutes either 1) sees the fun in having sex with someone who is faking (for his benefit) or 2) sees fun in having sex without a thought as to whether the reactions are real, fake, whatever.

Do you not see how feminists would consider either of those two positions to be anti-woman and so the positions of assholes?

MiddleageLiberal:

“So here we have the assertion by Amanda and others that johns in consensual prostitution really want domination.”

That is what they are *doing.*  Either they want it, or do not care that they are buying someone’s cooperation—they are using money as a medium for exchange instead of words.  THEY ARE DOMINATING.  I don’t know how to make it any more clear to you.

See msgoose’s excellent formulation of this point:

“Being indifferent to whether or not the woman you are using as a human masturbatory aid is into it is pretty gross.”

How do you *not* see that as domination?  Liberalrob, you too?

NOT HAVING TO CARE ABOUT HOW ANOTHER PERSON FEELS ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO THEIR BODY IS THE ULTIMATE DOMINATION.

tookish, thanks for the thanks and encouragement.

Thank you Ismone.

Rob, while you are correct that we all have blind spots and sacred cows, it goes both ways. I personally find the idea of a completely reframed world of professional sexality as a fine thing. I think it would be amazing to be able to contract with someone professionally to teach, counsel, pleasure, and so forth and believe those people with those skills (and believe me they are skills) should be held in high regard, compensated exceptionally well and have the authority to choose clients and forge a mutually beneficially working relationship.

That’s not how it is though. Sex workers are seen, generally, as intensely low status (sluts, whores, trashy, tacky you know the drill), and have little autonomy in terms of picking and choosing clients unless they have managed to work as a very high end GF experience which is still “work” for them and still not “respectable” as a profession.

So given the cultural bullshit surrounding how sex work is seen, and the anecdotal evidence that johns are completely indifferent to the feelings, experience of the woman in question. I fail to see how this isn’t a form of domination.

In an monetary exchange (you cut my hair, I pay you. You bring me food, I tip you, I need consoling and support, I pay you or my insurance does), the situation is such that it is easy to dismiss the person delivering the service (unless perhaps again you are in the highest end salon, or a chic, expensive restaurant where the service “acts” much more like they like you-they don’t but then again, few probably care).

When we monetize every exchange….well, this is what happens I think. And we probably aren’t gonna have a radical shift to a non consumer economy, so my preferred future involves sex workers who are seen as highly skilled professionals that any of us would be lucky to be able to afford and learn from pimps would be eradicated out of disgust for how they treat women, and there would be no trafficking.  Who’d traffic in the sacred, right?.

Given the indifference that johns apparently have, and the willingness johns have to seek out women to do things to (That the women do not enjoy which is why trafficking winds up happening), and the resistance from our liberal male commenters to even consider how that the currrent style of exchange might not be so positive for the woman (or man) in the equation, I don’t think that’s gonna happen either.

298: MiddleageLiberal

I hate it when writers or speakers say what adversaries think or what motivates their actions without any basis whatsoever except for the figments of their imagination.  I hear Limbaugh do it regularly.  He’ll say, “Liberals think X,” or “What liberals really want is Y” and I’ll think that neither I nor any liberal person I know think X or want Y.

I hate it when people ignore the fact that several sources have been linked providing insight into the attitudes johns have about prostitution and prostitutes and women and sex and why they pay for it.
You can pretend it’s an unknowable mystery all you want, it won’t make it the case. Same for painting anybody who has doesn’t see prostitution as an unproblematic exchange of goods and services (not to mention the idea of a human body as a salable good or service) as an evangelical right-winger.

You can pretend it’s an unknowable mystery all you want, it won’t make it the case.

Right on, snobographer. It’s like creationists who go “I can’t understand the science behind evolution, therefore when you talk about evolution you’re just making shit up, therefore *I* get to make up whatever shit *I* want about it.”

Just because someone like MiddleageLiberal doesn’t understand factual knowledge of a topic (or doesn’t want to believe that factual knowledge) doesn’t make it not factual, and MiddleageLiberal can’t just decide the facts about johns and their attitudes are whatever the hell he wants to say they are. But he’ll still try, of course.

@kristin

It bothers me that he came back to the thread after about 60 comments made in response to his assertions to respond to a male commenter and assert that we silly women can’t apply logic to what men do and say because that is just oppressing the poor oppressed oppressors.

So here we have the assertion by Amanda and others that johns in consensual prostitution really want domination.  And the reasons given for this conclusion have nothing to do with empirical evidence, either in the form of observed behaviors or what johns say or write.  Conclusions about what other people want can be legitimately based on what they say they want or, in spite of what they say, on their observed behaviors.  But here the conclusion is based on constructions of logic, sometimes called figments of imagination or more colloquially pulling it out of your ass.

MiddleageLiberal @ #298

So, we can take what the johns say at face value (which is they like buying sexual access to a woman’s body and her performance of pleasure) and agree with him (there is nothing wrong or pro-dominance about wanting to rent another person and her reactions) or we are just imagining that men are oppressive and trying to use an example of men choosing to exercise privilege (at the very least) over women (and paying!) as evidence that then men must somehow want to exercise that privilege.  Silly female “logic,” obviously.  We must just be pulling these conclusions out of our uptight vaginas.

His conclusions are valid and ours are not.  Obviously.

Atheist, A Feminist,

Another thing I’ve noticed with MiddleageLiberal and liberal rob (which is a shame, because I’ve read their comments for a long time with admiration) and quoderat (who is new to me) is that they are ignoring comments that I and others have directed specifically to them, by name.  The only time I ever ignore other posters like that is if they are out-and-out trolls.  And the only people who have done that to me, sadly, have been male-named posters.

What usually works is a little footstomping.  So here it is:

MiddleageLiberal, liberalrob, exactly where am I wrong in the comments I directed at you?  Or are you just ignoring those arguments because you’d rather go after strawfeminists/low hanging fruit?

Ismone,
I really thought I had exhausted what I had to say on this but I came back to this thread to check on something and saw your #308.  Truly, I was not trying to disrespect you, I just thought your questions were rhetorical only and I thought we were talking about different things.  I’ve now scanned the entire thread again and have some answers for you but it will take some thought and drafting and I do still have a job.  If you check back in here today try again later tonight.  I’ll try to have something up responding to your questions.

Ismone,
It seemed to me that the point you were repeating was that prostitution (including consensual prostitution, which is the only type I was addressing, the coerced form being inarguably immoral and to be vaporized if I could) is by its nature exploitative and subjugates women.  Your position would be true whatever the true motivations and desires of johns.  I was arguing that asserting as fact that the motivations of all or even most of such johns are the thrill of paying for it and the desire to subjugate women is likely untrue (based on my reading) and poor argument unless some evidence of that assertion is presented.  It is this habit of discourse which happens on other topics I was protesting. 

Looking back at the thread, I found two of your posts which addressed me.  The first was #266 where you drew an analogy of prostitution to indentured servitude.  Excellent analogy really.  But I took you to say that structure in of itself was immoral and unacceptably exploitive, whatever the motivations of the employer or master.  I don’t find it hard to imagine that a large # of the employers of indentured servants were not motivated by the desire to dominate other humans but rather by the pure profit motive:  virtually free labor for whatever economic enterprise he was in.  So an assertion without any evidentiary backing (single anecdotes don’t count for much) that all or most employers of indentured servants were motivated by a perverted desired to subjugate other humans I would object to.  I would find such an assertion ridiculous, actually. 

The second post where you addressed me was #301, where you argued that consensual prostitution was by its nature domination.  “That is what they are *doing.* Either they want it, or do not care that they are buying someone’s cooperation—they are using money as a medium for exchange instead of words.  THEY ARE DOMINATING.”  You pulled a quote from msgoose and said essentially that being indifferent to the woman’s wants equals domination.  I took your post as an argument of the essence of the exchange being domination, again whether or not the purchaser john’s subjective motivations included that desire.  Again, I never argued it wasn’t.  I just didn’t think were were talking about the same things, so I passed it by.  Sorry.

MiddleageLiberal,

I do appreciate you answering my points.  But my main point re: indentured servitude and slavery is that while it the slave/servant would not be a bad person for selling themself into servitude/slavery even (and, for example, giving the money to their children) people buying other people are doing something that is morally bad.  You suggest that not all such relationships are exploitative; fine.

Assuming that is so, do you think a person would be immoral if they sold themselves into indentured servitude/slavery where they knew they were going to be exploited?  If so, do you think they or the person who is doing the exploiting is more at harm.

Also, if you agree with me that the behavior is domination, why does subjective intent of the john matter at all?  Doesn’t it mean that Amanda is correct about the nature of the exchange?  And also, if they don’t even care to think about the fact that they are exercising domination, isn’t that a sign that their motives are even worse?  That they are completely ignoring the personhood of the person they are purchasing?

That was what I expressed, above.

correction “more at harm” should read “more to blame?”  preview is my friend….

@MiddleageLiberal

a large # of the employers of indentured servants were not motivated by the desire to dominate other humans but rather by the pure profit motive

There is a “pure” profit motive that separates the acquisition of currency from the acquisition of power?

So, when Wal-Mart locks employees in their stores overnight, it might be purely financial and not have anything to do with the workers themselves at all?

Do you think it is really possible to prioritize money over people and still have a healthy and non-dominating relationship with others?

I really don’t want to be drawn into an endless debate about the power dynamics of capitalism, so Atheist I respectfully decline to rise to the bait.

Ismone, similarly, most of the new questions you raise can lead to more endless hairsplitting judgments of what behavior is worse than another.  I just don’t want to be drawn into that.  Again, no disrespect intended.

I will respond to your question about why subjective intent of johns (or any other cultural or political adversaries) matters. I add the parenthetical because it was the phenomenon of baseless attribution of ill motives I objected to.  And since my reading of johns’s (aka hobbyists’) postings on escort boards was completely at odds with Amanda’s assertion about their real motives, it was and still is my view that she’s incorrect factually on that assertion.  Making false or baseless assertions about others undermines one’s credibility and is as useless as invectives, except maybe making you and your friends feel better in flinging them

If your purpose is making a moral judgment about the behavior of johns (any other group) their subjective motivations may not be material, or at least not as important as the result (in this case condemnable actual domination or subjugation as you have cogently argued).  If you care about degrees of assholery, motives might matter.  E.g. a guys who pays for an hour of vanilla sex of intercourse and oral are probably less reprehensible in my mind than guys who pay to revel in anal, bondage, deep throat and facials.

Understanding true subjective motives also matter if you want to change that group’s behavior or even change their thinking about the subject matter you’re discussing, whether it’s prostitution, pro-lifers or pure laissez-faire economics believers.  Many people who are attracted to or have weak allegiances to causes or cultural attitudes we oppose can be won over (or at least moved toward us) by arguments or discourse that is honest or backed up with evidence rather than imagined.  Consciousness raising cannot be accomplished if you put your audience on the defensive with baseless accusations of their ill motives.

Another reason to avoid baseless attribution of ill motives to other is that you may oppose them on one issue but persuade them on another issue. 

Other examples of improper attribution of motives:

Let’s say you despise Southern redneck culture for many and good reasons.  What’s their favorite sport?  NASCAR.  So you write up an op ed piece that includes an assertion that what NASCAR fans really want to see is somebody get killed in a crash.  Some fans might like to see crashes and you might even get some to say that’s what they like.  Obviously sometimes drivers and spectators are killed in the sport.  Still, the assertion is invalid.

Let’s say you hate pro football, so you say what pro football fans really want is to see people get injured and maimed.  Players get injured and maimed in the sport.  Often crowds cheer a particularly hard collision.  Players have been quoted as saying they like hurting opposing players.  Still, the assertion about the motives of the fans, particularly without evidentiary basis other than a small sampling of anecdotes, is invalid. 

Let’s take a fun one from Kanye West, who often entertains in ways he doesn’t intend.  It’s a bit different but still makes a similar point, at least on tactics.  On national t.v. on a spot pleading for public help for Katrina victims, Kanye says, “George Bush doesn’t care about Black people.”  My immediate reaction was, “Kanye you’ve got it all wrong.  George isn’t racist in this.  He just doesn’t care about POOR people.”  Still, regrettably enough people audience voted for the dweeb to make him president, twice.  Slamming his motives is hardly an effective way to solicit support from the general public.

@MiddleageLiberal

It wasn’t really meant to be bait.  It’s just, personally, I don’t believe that those sorts of “pure” motives exist.  If you do, then I can understand why you disagree with us.  You seem to be saying that because johns buy sex and talk about wanting sex that sex is the only motivation for it.

And since my reading of johns’s (aka hobbyists’) postings on escort boards was completely at odds with Amanda’s assertion about their real motives, it was and still is my view that she’s incorrect factually on that assertion.

There are other readings of what those johns said in this thread that support Amanda’s assertion.  Again, you seem to be saying that the existence of one motive (sex) precludes others.  We (for the most part, I assume) do not believe this.  There is no “pure” sex motive just as there is no “pure” profit motive.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, it is (to me) disingenuous to claim that the johns have no understanding whatsoever of the underlying sexual politics of purchasing a sex worker.  (Just as believing the Tea Party’s claim that they are not racist would require believing that they have no idea that racial politics even exist.  This is ridiculous.)  Sure, sex is one of a john’s motives, but it is not the only one.  If sex could exist as that form of “pure” motivator then the percentage of men and women hiring prostitutes currently would be shockingly low. 

To me, your reading of the johns’ postings seems a little like reading reviews of Hooters that discuss both the food they ate there and the attractive atmosphere, friendly servers, etc. and claiming that the only reason those men went to Hooters was because they were hungry.

I’m not hairsplitting.  You hammered the point that it was inconsistent for Amanda to argue that one side of the transaction could be more blameworthy than another.  You’re not arguing with me because you know I’m right.

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.  If Johns wouldn’t be prostitutes, they shouldn’t buy them either.

It grosses me out that you call them hobbyists, also.  Using other people is a hobby.  Great. 

And if they are too stupid or too deluded to realize they are dominating another person, that is a morally blameworthy state of mind.  Based on what you’ve now admitted, either they’re dominating and they subjectively know/want it (Amanda’s position, and the likely one, because that sort of “sex” is different from consensual, freely chosen sex—if they didn’t like the domination, they could go elsewhere), or they are dominating and they do not care. 

And basically, you’re saying your subjective readings of these Johns subjective intentions are better than Amanda’s—without any evidence.  And even if they think/want to present themselves as having the motives you think that they do, they are still dominating and do not care enough about the *person* they are dominating to bother thinking about them.  I don’t need your “analogies” to understand what you’re saying.  I’m saying the argument doesn’t apply here, because they are doing bad things, and subjectively, their mindstate is either culpable, or willfully blind.  Also, your point about vanilla vs. non-vanilla sex makes no sense—there you are describing actions, not motivations.

It grosses me out that you call them hobbyists, also.  Using other people is a hobby.  Great.

The term is not of my coinage.  See this link, the one that Amanda provided at #220 above http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/09/09/johns_craigslist/index.html
In that world the men are called “hobbyists” and the women are called “providers”.  BTW, the exact assertion of Amanda’s to which I took issue was this:  “[T]he act of buying sex is the turn-on and not incidental to the transaction.”  Despite her claim in the other thread that she marshaled evidence to support her assertion, neither that link nor any other she provided contained evidence of that assertion.

The only one who provided evidence of even the subjective desires to dominate was Selena at #140 with the London survey of johns (responding to an ad so perhaps off due to self-selection bias):  “21% go to prostitutes because they want women with physical racial and sexual stereotypes such as submissiveness.”  The report doesn’t say what portion of that 21% said they wanted submissiveness. 

I complimented alysia on her Netherlands links, which I read to make the point that legalization may well bring an increase in trafficking.  I didn’t see anything in those links that addressed johns desires for domination in consensual prostitution, but perhaps I missed it. 

You hammered the point that it was inconsistent for Amanda to argue that one side of the transaction could be more blameworthy than another.

I only addressed the inconsistency once, in two short sentences way back at #41, and not in the context of blame assignment, which I have tried to avoid entirely.  If that’s hammering then that’s your subjective experience of my two sentence observation.

And basically, you’re saying your subjective readings of these Johns subjective intentions are better than Amanda’s—without any evidence.

No.  I’m saying my reading is some evidence and Amanda presented none.

You’re not arguing with me because you know I’m right.

Not really.  I agree your argument that prostitution by its very nature, even if consensual, is domination of one human over another, is a good argument, well presented.  To that argument, evidence of the experience of “providers” is relevant and supportive. 

With that I am exhausted on the topic.  You may declare victory if that’s what you want.