Yeah, it's the same.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Why do men use prostitutes?
Wed, 2007-09-26 10:47
#52
Wed, 2007-09-26 10:47
#53
In response to "West Coast Greeny", there are answers in the Sven-Axel Mansson research referenced above:
“Men’s practices in prostitution and their implications for social work, ” Sven-Axel Mеnsson, [url=http://www.aretusa.net/download/centro%20documentazione/03contributi/c-0...
In response to Dana, prostituting women and youths is not as uniformly distributed in human history and space as you seem to think. (Mеnsson, among others, quotes widely varying prevalence rates.)
Men's prostituting of women & youths varies according to economic crises (forcing women into prostitution), culture, opportunity, social upheavals, military occupation of countries, con or pro legislation, racist stereotyping, advertising, youth virility rituals, etc.
And even if it had been as universal as you suggest, other generalized forms of exploitation have been pushed back through speakouts, awareness-raising, advocacy, mobilization. Isn't that what the Left is supposed to be about?
Wed, 2007-09-26 11:51
#54
Cueball
That doesn't really relate to Dana's point. Perhaps I can help.
quote:
Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
[b]
By the way, if you think you've never paid anyone to have sex, think again. Anyone who has ever rented porn has helped pay someone to have sex. If we truly made paying for sex illegal, all pornography would be illegal as the performers are being paid to have sex.[/b]
The Dworkin argument essentially comes to the same conclusion, so yes, banning porngraphy is part of the equation here as well.
[ 26 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-09-26 12:59
#55
I was responding to the sentence "...sex-trade work has been a part of pretty much every society on earth throughout all of recorded history," obviously.
I don't think scientific evidence supports an universalistic or biological explanation of prostituting other people, and I feel that it is important to resist these justifications for it.
P.S.: Contrary to the Official Story from the sexploitation industry, Dworkin, a diehard free speech advocate, specifically opposed banning pornography throughout her life. Her approach was to try to create, via a municipal ordinance, a civil recourse against porn producers for people victimized through it.
[url=http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OrdinanceCanada.html]"Although we recognize that the equality test adopted by Butler is an improvement on Canada's criminal obscenity law, we still do not advocate criminal obscenity approaches to pornography. They empower the state rather than the victims, with the result that little is done against the pornography industry." (Andrea Dworkin and Catharine A. MacKinnon)[/url]
[ 26 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2007-09-26 14:37
#56
Cueball
Surely you can find a link for that assertion. You know, like Dworkin saying: "I don't believe pornography should be banned, I just think the mode of its manufacture has to be changed so that is no longer exploitative."
That should be around on net somewhere, or equivalent.
[ 26 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-09-26 15:16
#57
Cueball
Thanks for the addition Martin:
quote:
Although we recognize that the equality test adopted by Butler is an improvement on Canada's criminal obscenity law, we still do not advocate criminal obscenity approaches to pornography. They empower the state rather than the victims, with the result that little is done against the pornography industry.We are encouraged, however, that the Butler decision under Canada's new Charter makes it likely that our [b]civil rights law against pornography[/b] would be found constitutional if passed there. And we are continuing our work to empower victims to fight back against harm committed by pornographers.
In other words, not illegal because it was obscene, but because it is offends the "civil rights" of those who are exploited by pornography.
Now find me the part were she suggest she might be in doubt as to whether or not the community might consider that pornography is in all situations a violation of civil rights, perforce, based on her analysis of the functioning of pornography in society?
[ 26 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-09-26 17:26
#58
About a friend of mine:
quote:
Tessa: Portrait of a Working Girl
by Peter BertonTessa (not her real name) is an escort. In plain English, she has sex for money.
Now Tessa is not stupid, nor pathetic, nor under coercion. She is a smart, self-directed woman who has chosen this life because she likes the hours and the very good pay. “I can spend my day with my son, then go out and make an excellent living,” she tells YNOT.
Tessa didn’t plan to be an escort. Instead, things progressed in her life until she came to this point. “I was going to school and needed a job, so I started as a shooter girl,” she says. “But then I saw how much money the dancers were making and I wanted to earn as much.”
Once she became a dancer, Tessa soon became aware that other girls were boosting their income by selling sex. “I used to swear up and down that I would never become an escort, and I used to look with total disgust at those girls who were,” she recalls. “But two years later, the money I was making as a dancer wasn’t enough, so I decided to take a customer up on his offer of $500 to meet him at a hotel. After that first time, I didn’t think twice about it.”
Today, Tessa splits her time between dancing and escorting. “I do both my jobs at the club. I don’t post ads; that would be too dangerous,” she explains. “About 60 - 70-percent of the people who come to the club are looking for more than a dance. So I arrange to meet them somewhere; usually a hotel. I also go to upscale bars and meet my clients that way.”
As with any job, the quality of clients varies. “Some expect you to be their therapist and to listen to them whine and complain about how rotten their lives are,” she says. “Others fall in love with you after the first time and mistake the sex for something more than it is. But there are also those who are just nice guys, who understand that you a professional providing a service, and treat you as such. I’ve got one regular who I see every week who is like this. He is bright and personable and fun to be with.”
So which job is better; being a stripper, or a call girl? “It’s better being an escort than a dancer,” Tessa replies. “When you’re a dancer, you have to wait until you can convince a customer in the bar to go to the back room with you. That can take up to an hour. But being an escort, you have people calling and asking to meet you, without the small talk that you have to go through in the club.”
quote:
Today, Tessa is committed to being a dancer, escort, and a mother. She knows that someday she’ll have to find other work – “guys always want younger girls; that’s part of the fantasy” – but for now she’s content to do what she does.“This life isn’t for you if you’re not really comfortable with yourself and your body,” Tessa tells YNOT. “You have to be strong, keep off the drugs, and never lose sight of who you are and what you care about. But hey, the money is really, really good.”
[url=http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&s... of an escort[/url]
Thu, 2007-09-27 10:41
#59
Well, that's our answer to the original question, n'est-ce pas?
To provide women comfortable with their bodies a wonderful and very lucrative experience.
Ain't we sweet?...
Thu, 2007-09-27 14:51
#60
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Well, that's our answer to the original question, n'est-ce pas?
To provide women comfortable with their bodies a wonderful and very lucrative experience.
Ain't we sweet?...[/b]
My god, but your a prat.
Thu, 2007-09-27 17:48
#61
It is important to analyse the economics and gender politics around prostitution as it exists today, but it bothers me that nobody is actually questioning the underlying assumption that prostitution is bad.
Why is prostitution bad?
If it were legal and prostitutes had the protection of the police it would not be as exploitative and frightening an industry as it is today.
The criminalization of prostitution is highly exploitative of women. Prostitutes are denied the basic rights of protection that the rest of society have. Why? Is what they do so bad?
I understand that martin dufresne is arguing for decriminalization. I support that. I think however that a truly modern and rational society would legalize prostitution completely.
If we exclude religious based arguments (and we do like to think we are a secular society) what arguments are left to justify making this an elicit trade?
Thu, 2007-09-27 18:09
#62
I think it's difficult to say, in any simple way, why men and women offer themselves sexually for money, and why mostly men buy their services.
There are so many stereotypes of both sides of the transaction, and little understanding, beyond the superficial exchange of money for sex, of what really motivates. It isn't the obvious capitalistic exchange of service for money that we don't understand, it's the motivation for stepping outside what is deemed "acceptible" by the standards of the day.
What kind of space does your head have to inhabit to allow sexual contact with a stranger for money an acceptible thing?
Thu, 2007-09-27 20:12
#63
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Saber asks: "Why shouldn't men pay?"Why indeed? And why should they get sucked off when they do?[/b]
I'll tell you what bothers me about this statement. It's sexist.
Men do not have the right to tell women what is and is not degrading for them. Back when women were chattel, bought and sold in a male dominate marketplace, in which the most common business transaction was marriage, women protected their value by protecting their virginity. Well, not any more. We're not cars.
People who enjoy seeing women as inferior will often talk about women's victim hood or degradation. It's more politically correct to talk about their degradation than their inferiority. But what is degradation? The devaluing of. So, if a man gets to say what degrades a woman, he gets to say what lowers her value. However, this language is often heard as "feminist". As though looking down on a woman but pitying her at the same time is somehow more feminist. Then, there is the inverted form of this "victim- feminism" which is to blame women for their victimization.
I find it interesting that women are often blamed for their victim hood when they do something that brings the scorn of patriarchal society upon them. When they break men's rules, it lowers their value in a male dominated society. They are therefore stigmatized. The stigma limits their agency. Having had their agency limited, they are oppressed by society. However, people rarely see that it is not the act itself that has lead to this diminished agency and victim hood but rather society's punishment of the act; the punishment for disobeying patriarchal rules. In this case, market rules.
Your comment supports the very sexist hegemony that you are telling women to protect themselves from by obeying.
What is to be stigmatized about a blow-job?
1) It cannot get a woman pregnant
2) In terms of STD infection it is several times
safer for a woman than vaginal sex.
3) It gets a man ready for vaginal sex, if that
is what the woman wants
Your glib remark implies that sex is one of the most victimizing acts that a woman can commit. Well, you wouldn’t say it is victimizing for a man. Would you?
Thu, 2007-09-27 22:35
#64
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
About a friend of mine:Portrait of an escort
Gee, I've never heard any empowerment stories of real-life escorts before [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] This makes me feel so much better about paying someone to sexually service me. Yay.
And a site that features naked-breasted women and links to "porn access" is obviously a great basis for discussions in the feminism forum.
wtf ?
Fri, 2007-09-28 06:42
#65
Some people say that most labour is coerced so we shouldn't be too concerned about the fact that most women in prostitution describe this institution as coercive - and not just because pimping is illegal!
But the history of labour is one of fighting coercion. The reason why we don't have Guaranteed Livable Income is directly linked to the importance of coercion to accommodate capitalist and male pressures, despite the traditional discourse about workers' "consent" and "free choice", so often imposed by liberals and conservatives alike in labour issues. (Didn't they use to say the same about other forms of exploitation, e.g. slavery and, more recently, child-buying?)
My point is that we have a collective responsibility to stand up to these pressures, validate voices of resistance - and a long history in the Left of doing so.
Workers have given themselves - through back-breaking activism - legislation to limit employers and clients' choices. Sweatshops are illegal, so is harassment, minimum salaries have been struggled for and obtained - even if many categories of women remain deprived of these basic rights.
I feel that the current neo-liberal reform project of decriminalizing pimping and brothel-keeping - in order to better accommodate tax-paying businesses freedom to further exploit women's current lack of real options in a racist, sexist workplace - is something that should similarly be identified and resisted - as most women in prostitution resist them - even when this project is touted by some as women's choice.
[ 28 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Fri, 2007-09-28 08:32
#66
Saber asked: "Why shouldn't men pay?"
I responded: "Why indeed? And why should they get sucked off when they do?"
In response, Saber makes a number of points that address key issues in this controversy. I’ll try to be clearer. The above remark *was* pithy - glib to some - but I can’t really be faulted for not unpacking and documenting the issue at length earlier.
I supported Saber’s point that men should pay. Men/we have a grossly unfair proportion of the money. Indeed, we - like pimps - make most of it off women’s backs. Income redistribution is a matter of justice (and it is a crime that neo-liberal/conservative policies collaborate in gutting it). My point was that men shouldn’t be entitled to « sexual servicing » for ceding piddling amounts of this money. It is their choice of acts, not women "committing" this or that that I am challenging (as a fellow man).
Saber says that men have no right to tell women what is and is not degrading to them. I agree. But are men entitled to support women with first-hand experience who testify that men knowingly degrade and exploit them in prostitution and who resist the prospect of the State normalizing this state of things? Are men entitled to take at face value these women’s words about their lives – as I have been doing here – and to act on these women’s calls for support? Must men's contributions be limited to anonymous claims that anonymous female friends think it's great? I think – and I am convinced that Saber will agree – that this is for women to decide.
Saber suggests that it is fellatio I am attacking. It would be fascinating to someday address men’s symbolic investment in this specific ritual, but my argument was limited to prostitution i.e. whether sexual servicing (of any form) should be a male-ordained condition of income redistribution.
Is it to « look down » on women to state – as many prostituted and non-prostituted women do – that pimps, brothel-owners and johns look down on (and indeed oppress) women in prostitution? Again, I feel that this is for women to assess, but if the field of domestic violence is an indication, front-line workers have overcome the liberal pretense that to acknowledge and oppose coercive conditions was always equivalent to "victimizing" women.
Finally, is prostitution really "disobeying patriarchal rules"? I know that Penthouse and the sex-liberal canon in general say so, but I doubt it. The argument that it has been around since the beginning of patriarchy suggests the contrary, and validates the feminist analyses of men's choices and decisions around marriage AND prostitution as strategies of appropriation.
Thank you for addressing the crux of the matter.
[ 28 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Fri, 2007-09-28 12:26
#67
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] Saber says that men have no right to tell women what is and is not degrading to them. I agree. But are men entitled to support women with first-hand experience who testify that men knowingly degrade and exploit them in prostitution and who resist the prospect of the State normalizing this state of things? Are men entitled to take at face value these women’s words about their lives – as I have been doing here – and to act on these women’s calls for support? [b]Must men's contributions be limited to anonymous claims that anonymous female friends think it's great?[/b] I think – and I am convinced that Saber will agree – that this is for women to decide.[/b]
But anonymous heresay claims by people who agree with your predetermined ideological fixations are just AOK.
Such as:
quote:
In 1984, a Montreal woman was pressured by her UIC agent into accepting a nude dancing job. She had to raise a big stink in the media to avoid losing her benefits.I was told last year by Quebec City welfare rights advocates that female beneficiaries are pressured all the time by investigators into turning tricks instead of going on collecting welfare.
The fact is that the number of named real-life prostitutes who argue against your position is large. You selectively ignore these voice, and supplant it with yours, simply by ignoring them,
The "good" proselytizing psychologist, kindly telling women what is really wrong with their lives , instead of accepting at "face value these women’s words about their lives."
[img]http://www.bayswan.org/sexworkereuropedemo.jpg[/img]
![http://www.bayswan.org/sexworkereuropedemo.jpg[/img]](http://www.bayswan.org/sexworkereuropedemo.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
[url=http://www.bayswan.org/penet.html]PEN[/url]
quote:
Legislators of this century have continued to fail to realise that prostitutes are not a special breed of women with compulsions to indulge in criminal behaviour... socially, culturally and psychologically prostitute women pursue lifestyles little different to the millions of other single working women, wives and mothers in the... community. Popular mythology keeps prostitute women separated from other women in people's minds, while the law, founded as it is in 19th century puritanism, keeps them separated in the social order -- Roberta Perkins
[url=http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/working/index.html]Working girls : prostitutes, their life and social control[/url]
Instead you insist on telling women in the sex trade what they want, as opposed to hearing what they say want. [b]In other words you tell them what [i]you[/i] want them to want.[/b]
[ 28 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fri, 2007-09-28 12:32
#68
quote:
Gee, I've never heard any empowerment stories of real-life escorts before This makes me feel so much better about paying someone to sexually service me. Yay.And a site that features naked-breasted women and links to "porn access" is obviously a great basis for discussions in the feminism forum.
wtf ?
For the love of God! Can we please discuss this without resorting to shaming as a debating tactic?
Fri, 2007-09-28 12:36
#69
You mean like this?
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]My god, but your a prat.[/b]
I meant to mention this earlier - let's not fall into namecalling.
Fri, 2007-09-28 12:40
#70
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]You mean like this?I meant to mention this earlier - let's not fall into namecalling.[/b]
Sorry. [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-09-28 12:51
#71
[b]SPICE[/b]
Fri, 2007-09-28 13:12
#72
quote:
And a site that features naked-breasted women and links to "porn access" is obviously a great basis for discussions in the feminism forum.wtf ?
Oh Im sorry, I didnt know you wanted all female voices silenced that didnt agree with your version of feminism
Fri, 2007-09-28 13:32
#73
I find this a really bizarre discussion. I think women should be able to choose what they want to do to earn money. However being a man I think men who pay for sex are sexist pigs who I wouldn't invite into my home, the same as I don't invite people I know to be racist or homophopic. Sex is meant to be about mutual pleasure.
Fri, 2007-09-28 14:53
#74
"Come together - and let your life shine!" - Circle Square, circa 1976.
Fri, 2007-09-28 15:29
#75
Haven't heard that one in a while! And now the song will be stuck in my head all night. Damn you! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
(I actually wrote away for the songbook when I was little. It was free!)
Fri, 2007-09-28 18:15
#76
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]Gee, I've never heard any empowerment stories of real-life escorts before [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] This makes me feel so much better about paying someone to sexually service me. Yay.
And a site that features naked-breasted women and links to "porn access" is obviously a great basis for discussions in the feminism forum.
wtf ?[/b]
That's right. A real life story about a real-life escort. These are real women. Why are you discrediting them on a feminist forum?
Fri, 2007-09-28 18:42
#77
I saw an ad with real live women saying how the latest skin-care product made them look and feel years younger. Therefore it must be true.
Fri, 2007-09-28 19:09
#78
Whatever we say, focussing on women evades the thread question : "Why do men use prostitutes?" - and protects men's choices.
[url=http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MichLawJourI.html]Prostitution and Male supremacy[/url]
Fri, 2007-09-28 19:31
#79
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
[b]I saw an ad with real live women saying how the latest skin-care product made them look and feel years younger. Therefore it must be true.[/b]
Is there any indication that the woman who made the statement in question was doing it for commercial purposes?
Fri, 2007-09-28 20:28
#80
Is there any indication that Penthouse Forum isn't based on real life experiences? Sorry, but it's onething to argue for less punitive laws re prostitution and porn, it's something else again to insist that many women 'choose' this profession. A few perhaps, but very few.
Fri, 2007-09-28 20:38
#81
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Whatever we say, focussing on women evades the thread question : "Why do men use prostitutes?" - and protects men's choices.
[url=http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MichLawJourI.html]Prostitution and Male supremacy[/url][/b]
Then one might ask, what is a thread about men doing in the Feminism forum?
Your attempts to eliminate any female discourse outside of what you deem pertinent is patently see through. Here persons introduce real live women talking about being real live prostitutes, and you now want to exclude their testimony. On the other hand the theories of Andrea Dworkin are apparently fair game.
You have chosen Andrea Dworkin as the woman you can use to assert you paridigm, and now want to make hers the only feminist voice, which can be heard from.
I don't see anything particularly feminist about a man determining which women can be listened too.
Fri, 2007-09-28 20:49
#82
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
[b]Is there any indication that Penthouse Forum isn't based on real life experiences? Sorry, but it's onething to argue for less punitive laws re prostitution and porn, it's something else again to insist that many women 'choose' this profession. A few perhaps, but very few.[/b]
Why not read the links that I provided including an comprehensive study, based on scientific surveys of prostitutes in Australia, and also the link to PEN a US base prositutes advocacy group. I didn't bother to look for any T&A so, I can't vouch for the advertising on the PEN site.
That said, it would seem kind of illogical and hypocritical if a site committed to advocating for the rights of prostitutes, would exclude pornographic advertisments because it offends some peoples political beliefs or moral sensibilities, since the site is an advocacy group opposing specifically that kind of censorship.
Fri, 2007-09-28 20:50
#83
So many straw men, so little time...
Fri, 2007-09-28 20:54
#84
Cueball, I think you missed the point of his comment, which I thought was very incisive:
quote:
Whatever we say, focussing on women evades the thread question : "Why do men use prostitutes?" - and protects men's choices.
Nor is anyone trying to exclude "female discourse" here, that I can tell. It appears there are very few women participating in this discussion, possibly because the question in the thread title is being asked primarily of men, not women.
Fri, 2007-09-28 21:00
#85
Cueball
Don't you mean straw women? Lets not forget the arguements you are dismissing come from women, not just I.
What is your comment on sex trade workers who oppose your views, where do they fit in with the [b]your[/b] feminist movement?
Try this on:
[url=http://www.iusw.org/policy/index.html]Trafficking[/url]
quote:
In her paper of 1999, Jo Doezema has pointed out that the current panic over the trafficking of women and children has a historical precedent in the panic over the white slave trade in Victorian times. This moral panic was used to provide hysteria against brothels, and convince the public that prostitutes were not "loose women" but "innocent victims of men". Newspapers sell on stories of asexual vulnerable people being shipped around the world and imprisoned in sex slave camps.Jo goes on to say, "To the myth of the white slave's innocent has been added the third world difference of supposed ignorance, faithfulness to tradition and sexual backwardness. The myth of white slavery / trafficking in women is ostensibly about protecting women, yet the underlying moral concerns are with controlling them."
Jo suggests that women who migrate for the sex industry can only be freed from violations of their human rights if they are first freed of their mythical constraints.
[SNIP]
A number of today's campaigns have become a platform for reactionary and paternalistic voices, advocating a rigid sexual morality under the guise of protecting women, and incorporating racist and classist perceptions in their analysis of the sex industry in developed countries. Often, "trafficking" is used by states to initiate and justify restrictive policies.
The police and other authorities have reasons to exaggerate reports of 'slavery' in which sex workers are unable to select their clients or decide what services they will give. [b]Scare-mongering creates jobs.[/b]
[url=http://www.iusw.org/start/index.html]The International Union of Sex Workers[/url]
Fri, 2007-09-28 21:07
#86
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]Cueball, I think you missed the point of his comment, which I thought was very incisive:Nor is anyone trying to exclude "female discourse" here, that I can tell. It appears there are very few women participating in this discussion, possibly because the question in the thread title is being asked primarily of men, not women.[/b]
Dufrensen most certainly is. People introduce testimonies from some of the women who do this work, and Dufresne then decides we should go back to the "thread topic:" Men "using" prostitutes. How does he do this? He does this by refering us to a theoretical document by Andrea Dworkin.
Ergo, the [i]theories[/i] of Dworkin are allowed, testimonies from women in the sex trade that contradict Dworkin are not.
To the point: Dworkin's thesis is that tricking is essentially exploitative -- ergo we conclude that the prima facie reason that "men "use" prostitutes" is for the exact purpose of exploiting them. However, this equation completely falls apart if you introduce testimony that indicates that prostitution is not in all cases exploitative from the women who are presumably being exploited in the first place.
[ 28 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fri, 2007-09-28 21:13
#87
Whatever Dufresne is doing, so are you. How about you stop "protecting" the sex-workers for a few seconds (it's OK, they can take care of themselves for a little while), and focussing on the men in this equation?
eta: I mean to say the men on the demand side of this equation.
[ 28 September 2007: Message edited by: jas ]
Fri, 2007-09-28 21:22
#88
Cueball
I am not at all doing what Dufresne is doing. I repeatedly agreed on numerous points of the essential analysis of Andrea Dworkin, and agree that the sex trade is generally exploitative of women. I have not dismissed all of the analysis, nor dismissed Dworkin out of hand. On the other hand, I have also introduced counter-arguement from other sources, the very women whom Dufresne is supposedly protecting, and he just rolls right on.
At no point in time has Dufrensne responded to any of that counter argument, and when it appears he ignores it, or in this case attempts to get the subject back on topic, which is according to him "mens desire to exploit women," as expressed through "using" prostitutes. [i]From one, the other is deduced:[/i] the relationship is exploitative, so therefore the men must be seeking to exploit women, when they seek out prostitutes -- simple.
The problem is that if one can show that not all sex-trade workers are coerced, then they are not being abnormally exploited, at least beyond normal standards of exploitation common in most work places. If they are not exploited then the proof that men seek out prostitutes as an expression of their desire to exploit women, is severly compromised.
As for your question, I am the only person who as answered it, actually.
[ 28 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fri, 2007-09-28 21:32
#89
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:As for your question, I am the only person who as answered it, actually.
Just a quick glance at this thread confirms for me that this is most certainly not the case.
Fri, 2007-09-28 21:33
#90
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Well the only time I ever went to a prostitute it was because I wanted to know what going to a prostitute would be like. What is it like to pay for sex?[/b]
Fri, 2007-09-28 21:45
#91
Cueball
Can we play spin the bottle now?
Fri, 2007-09-28 21:55
#92
Now THERE'S a game I can get into.
You'll have to play on your own, though, cause I'm going to bed.
Fri, 2007-09-28 21:56
#93
Cueball
LOL
Fri, 2007-09-28 23:13
#94
This question " Why do men use prostitutes?" presupposes a certain kind of stereotyped sexual transaction: man hires women for a sexual encounter.
This may make up the majority of sex-trade work, but it is hardly the only kind. I mentioned above that women and couples also hire sex-workers, if to a lesser extent. Do women and couples hire sex-trade workers for different reasons than men do?
Another aspect to the question, is what about men (or women) who see dominatrixes?
Consider a man who pays a sex-trade worker to dominate him and sexually humiliate him, but with no actual sexual contact. Does this count as a "man who uses prostitutes"? Do you think the reasons this person would hire a prostitute are the same or different as a man who hires a sex-trade worker for a different kind of experience?
What about a man who hires a prostitute to dominate him and use a strap-on to penetrate him and give him sexual pleasure that way. Is he also "using a prostitute" in the same sense as a man who hires a prostitute for a more conventional sexual experience?
I think a broader perspective would reveal that people hire sex-trade workers for a wide variety of reasons. I agree that some people who hire prostitutes are people who hate women and seek to degrade and harm them. But I don't agree that all, or even a majority of people who hire sex-trade workers are necessarily abusive, disrespectful or even distasteful. There's a wide spectrum of human behavior.
A good public policy would be to use regulations and controls to make adult sex-trade work as safe as healthy as possible, like we do with every other profession.
Also, I read the speech by Andrea Dworkin that was linked above. I haven't read much of her work before, but it seems to me that she has a pathology of some sort, and I disagree vehemently with the attitudes and ideas I read in her speech.
Sat, 2007-09-29 11:09
#95
Here are just a few misogynous remarks that have been made during the course of this thread:
quote:
martin dufresne:Well, that's our answer to the original question,
n'est-ce pas?
To provide women comfortable with their bodies a
wonderful and very lucrative experience.
Ain't we sweet?...
Perhaps the original question (an inquiry into what
men want) need not take precedence over the mandate of
the forum which is Femenist. Nowhere does she say
that men purchase her services to benefit her. That
is why she charges money. Your rhetorical statement
derives its punch from sexist attitudes, attacking
women who are comfortable with their bodies.
quote:
EriKtheHalfaRed:I saw an ad with real live women saying how the latest
skin-care product made them look and feel years
younger. Therefore it must be true.
How dare you use words spoken by a woman working in her capacity as an actress to discredit the words of a woman who is delivering a personal testimony. Is your inability to discriminate between fact and fiction limited to your perceptions of women?
quote:
Jas:
How about you stop "protecting" the sex-workers for a
few seconds (it's OK, they can take care of themselves
for a little while), and focussing on the men in this
equation?
eta: I mean to say the men on the demand side of this
equation.
Well, protecting women is one of the mandates of
Feminism. If you don’t like it. Get off the thread.
I understand that the official argument being put forward by some of these individuals is that prostitution should be decriminalized and that Johns should be punished.
The rhetoric that these individuals are using to support these arguments however is misogynous. The top quote by martin dufresne is a prime example of this.
Let us consider for a moment a form of labour other than sexual labour. Let us consider sweat shops. Would you argue for the rights of factory workers internationally by ridiculing the people who work in them? Would you discredit statements issued by their unions? Would factory work be so bad if it were properly regulated? The argument against sweat shops is that they operate illicitly, in countries where there is little or no labour legislation. Well that is the same argument that I am making about prostitution. And if we want proper regulation of the industry it is going to have to be regulated by the workers.
Envisioning a better life for women should be the focus on this thread. It is my hope that sex-trade workers will continue to organize and form unions that enable them to operate independently and with full protection under the human rights code. Why would we want an industry populated by individuals marginalized by the economy and by society not to be shaped by the people who are immediately depending on it. Women working in prostitution are immediately dependent on that trade for their livelihood. Why should they not determine their working conditions? Can you think of any reason?
[ 29 September 2007: Message edited by: Saber ]
Sat, 2007-09-29 11:25
#96
quote:
As for your question, I am the only person who as answered it, actually.
Can you blame men for not answering? Babble is many things, but it is NOT a councilor's office. The atmosphere in this thread is highly judgemental, and no John is going to admit to having sexual relations with a sex worker when the risk of being condemned as a mysoginist pervert exists.
[ 29 September 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Sat, 2007-09-29 15:56
#97
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[QB]Can you blame men for not answering? Babble is many things, but it is NOT a councilor's office. The atmosphere in this thread is highly judgemental, and no John is going to admit to having sexual relations with a sex worker when the risk of being condemned as a mysoginist pervert exists.
[QB]
CMOT, feminism and progressivism is about being able to examine our own consumption patterns, attitudes, and behaviours against the background of our social context. The question is being asked in that spirit. But yes, some judgementalism is seeping through, and I admit to some of that on my own part.
Sat, 2007-09-29 17:28
#98
God forbid that we should be judgemental about a condition that 95% of respondents are trying to ecape! ("Prostitution in Vancouver : Pimping Women and the Colonization of First Nations Women," in Christine Stark and Rebecca Whisnant (Eds.), [b][url=http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/book_detail.php?id=109]Not for Sale, Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography[/url][/b], North Melbourne, Spinifex, 2004.
[ 29 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sat, 2007-09-29 18:29
#99
Cueball
A poll of waitresses will likely get you the same figure of people trying to escape their dead end job. And lets fact it, prostitution is a dead end job.
Lets talk about how your moralistic censure, adds to the low self-esteem of the "victims" you are so righteously, trying to lift up from their debased ways.
And above all lets not talk about the fact that the great majority of women in the sex trade would prefer, not only not to be in it, but also not to be persecuted by people like you because they are in it. Denigrated and marginalized so that they are even more vulnerable to the process you say you are opposed to.
You say you only want to prosecute the johns, and not the prostitutes themselves. And this is supposed to make them less vulnerable to being victimized. How so? This is just having your cake and eating it too. It is still illegal activity, which must perforce, go on in secret, away from the eyes of society and the police, and so still create the conditions under which gross exploitation can take place, because the prostitute must protect her client, or give sufficient assurance that he will be protected, in order for her to be able to ply her trade.
Even if you were to squash the industry by throwing all the Johns in jail, you propose nothing to alliviate the basic economic stresses that make many women take up prositution, and at the very best you may make it impossible for them to make any living whatsoever, [i]the very condition they are trying to escape by becoming prostitutes.[/i]
You have merely replicated the conditions you say you are trying ameliorate.
[ 29 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sat, 2007-09-29 21:59
#100
Well, now we have "Cueball"'s own answer to the thread question: "in order for her to be able to ply her trade"...
I am fascinated by his, CMOT's and Saber's apparent inability to justify - or indeed address in any fashion - the reason(s) for men's use of women in prostitution.
All we are treated to are attempts to convince us that any feminist critique of johns, pimps, brothel-owners and complicit politicians are "really" assaults on the women being used.
Not only used by johns, but by prostitution apologists, apparently, a ploy with a long-standing tradition in the Left.
[b]"CHICKS UP FRONT!"[/b]
Lynda Obst, producer of a TV show called The Sixties, says in an interview: "...the women's movement grew out of such '60s contradictions as men dominating the activist meetings where women, instead of creating policy, were being used as a blunting force. "Chicks up front!" was a familiar rallying call at the protests because no one thought the troops would fire on women."
It's hard not to see this is still happening when Bacchus' way of addressing the thread question is to proffer an alleged testimony (written by another man) about one more anonymous happy hooker, posted on "YNOT.com: the Ultimate Adult Webmaster Resource Site"
Well-deserved sarcasm about this pathetic copout - where I simply pointed out the logic behind Bacchus' post: justifying men's use of prostitutes by a prostituted woman's fulfillment - is presented as if I rather than prostitution apologists were pushing women in the line of fire... A simple quote of "Tessa"'s words in a straight summary of this text is huffily labeled "misogyny", as if it was her I was challenging rather than "Bacchus" for using her in this manner.
[b]Tokenism?[/b]
One of the more pleasant moments of this thread has been "Saber" rattling: "How dare you use words spoken by a woman working in her capacity as an actress to discredit the words of a woman who is delivering a personal testimony?"
Regardless of the veracity of Tessa's (not her real name) story - something none of us can ascertain - I am surprised that Saber seems oblivious to tokenism, i.e. the extent women in prostitution must act, feign fulfilment, tell sex industry journalists - like johns - what they want to hear, indeed the only stuff their media will publish.
[b]"How could you have believed me?"[/b]
Trust women who have escaped prostitution who reveal this rigmarole. Ulla, the most visible of Lyon's "sex workers" during the seventies, recently challenged the liberal feminists who had bought and applauded her apparent empowerment at the time: "Comment avez-vous pu me croire?" (How could you have believed me?) (1) She even revealed that it was her pimp who had been writing her speeches...
I know I shouldn't even honour with a response the gross insults used here to evade men's choices, silence skeptics of the Official Story and misrepresent/caricature/vilify feminist critiques of commercial sexual exploitation and detailed proposals to end it.(2)
The simple fact that so much of this thread has been spent doing this, i.e. actively sidestepping men's choices and responsibility, speaks volumes. Still, it's a sign of progress: it wasn't that long ago that men didn't even have to bother with denial and excuses or to hide behind "real women" to protect their gender interests.
__________________________________
(1) From the CYBERSOLIDAIRES webiste:
C'est un mйtier qui peut кtre librement choisi, disent plusieurs. Florence Montreynaud connaоt trиs bien l'argument. "Mais je suis assez vieille maintenant pour avoir vu les premiиres travailleuses du sexe, celles de la rйvolte des prostituйes en France en 1975. Elles disaient : "Nous sommes libres, indйpendantes..." Des annйes aprиs, quand elles ont arrкtй, elles nous ont dit : "Comment avez-vous pu me croire?" Je n'ai jamais oubliй cette phrase." Elle l'a souvent rйentendue depuis. Et il n'y pas lа de paradoxe selon elle : "Rien de plus normal qu'une femme dont le corps est transformй en marchandise cherche, par les mots, а garder une certaine estime d'elle-mкme." Elle ne peut pas croire qu'on puisse "consentir а son propre abaissement".
En 1975, Ulla, la pasionaria de la rйvolte de Lyon, se clamait libre de tout proxйnиte et dйfendait haut et fort le droit а un travail non criminalisй. Aujourd'hui, elle reconnaоt qu'elle йtait "maquйe, comme 98% des filles". Ce n'est pas pour protйger son souteneur qu'elle a menti. "Mais pour sauver ma peau. C'йtait trop dangereux de dire la vйritй..." [url=http://cybersolidaires.typepad.com/ameriques/2002/09/comment_avezvou.htm... Comment avez-vous pu me croire?[/url]
(2) [url=http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=2642]Because a world without prostitution is possible... (CLES' political agenda)[/url]
Sat, 2007-09-29 22:21
#101
Cueball
You have some serious issues pal.