What are the main reasons men pay for sex?

[Blue_Adept]

Moar White Privilege I suspect.

Relevant to recent discussions as it was only touched upon briefly by some why men would want to pay for it.

The debate about whether there's something wrong with buying sex, and whether it should be illegal, is heated and unresolved. Amid the debate, however, one question is rarely asked - what motivates men to pay women to sleep with them?

BBC Link!

[BlueJazz]

1. I've wondered about the same thing. It would seem so unreal and cold.

At the risk of sounding unmanly (what-ever-that-is) I suspect I couldn't ...ah..perform.
Too impersonal and weird.

[brooklynite]

18. So you've never paid for something that you didn't want to do or couldn't get someone to do free?

Cook you a meal?

Wash your laundry?

Carry your luggage to a taxi?

Or is the question predicated on the assumption that "we all know" it's WRONG to pay for sex so why would someone do it?

[treestar]

345. Those are all so much less personal

It's far less invasive to cook for someone, etc. Far less likely to get a disease. Can be in a place where you're not alone and far less likely to be assaulted. Let's not pretend having sex is so nothing, so just another activity, that it could be a job like cooking.

[Sparhawk60]

2. A Few Possable Reasons

No strings attached, no emotional ties, wide selection and ease of purchase, to name a few. Just becouse you don't do something should not mean that you can not understand why others do so.

[Mr Dixon]

29. Agreed

Good Answer

[tazkcmo]

190. These and others

That are not nefarious or ill willed. A famous person that can't go out and "pick up" a partner at a bar or club. No hassles, no expectations, sex is fun.

[badtoworse]

3. They're horny and prospects are poor.

[Nitram]

24. right on the money badtoworse

[mythology]

135. As somebody who couldn't get laid in a women's prison

I don't find that a valid reason given how closely prostitution is correlated to human trafficking.

[Warpy]

180. Or they're not poor and they want a little strange on the side

with bonus points if he or she will do something the SO has vetoed.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. It's cheaper than dating?

I have no idea.


Does this help? : "For some people litigation takes the place of sex at middle age."

[Blue_Adept]

6. I'd suggest the article

It lists quite a few variations on the why.

[Nye Bevan]

5. One quote I heard from someone familiar with the likes of Charlie Sheen,

is that they are paying not for the women to come and have sex, but rather to leave afterwards with no fuss.

[Hooked_n_Looped]

7. Efficacy...

Cost vs benefit based on a personal set of standards and requirements.

[leftyohiolib]

8. what does white priviledge have to do with buying sex

[Blue_Adept]

11. Only creepy old white men do this

Because they're losers who can't connect with people.

or at least that's the narrative I've seen multiple times (not just here).

Or since it's a BBC article and they pretty much largely interview white men...

[leftyohiolib]

12. ONLY creepy old white men use prostitutes?

[Blue_Adept]

13. A touch of hyperbole, that's all. nt

[Nitram]

26. Then you'll have to explain why...

...prostitution is practiced in every country of the world by non-white men. I'm surprised anyone could be so naive about the universal practice of prostitution.

[Blue_Adept]

39. I was talking more about the kind of narrative from US friends

and others around here that have gone about it. I probably should put a sarcasm tag next to it. Would it be wrong to edit it for that?

[jberryhill]

327. in Britain, apparently

[snagglepuss]

226. You are the racist, one with no qualms of displaying sheer ignorance.

The following is a demogaphic analysis of the age and race of men who frequent prostitutes. It took seconds to goodle this in-depth scientific analysis. Guess what it concludes

Young men were overrepresented among male clients of prostitute women in US metropolitan communities, and they also accounted for a disproportionate number of heterosexual sexual partnerships nationally. Clients were much more likely to be Hispanic, somewhat more likely to be Black, had substantially less education, were less likely to be married, and weighed a few pounds less on average than men in the general population, but clients did not deviate from the norm in terms of height...



http://www.ejhs.org/volume11/brewer.htm

[betsuni]

9. Candy

Men I know who buy sex look at women like children look at candy, something sweet that makes them feel good. If the candy store is open, they're buying. That's my theory. I can't help seeing a person and not a piece of candy.

[In_The_Wind]

10. Several possibilities come to mind: but putting a temporary end to loneliness tops the list.

[nomorenomore08]

15. Yeah. I don't doubt that a lot of "johns" are violent, abusive creeps, though certainly not all.

On the other hand, there are those who are genuinely lonely and in need of sexual companionship. So it's not purely a black-and-white issue.

[In_The_Wind]

30. This topic has an endless number of possibilities ...

... like a young man I knew who (due to medical reasons) was unable to have a sexual relationship with anyone. He paid for female escorts as traveling companions.

[treestar]

37. Why should anyone have to be available to be paid for?

I know it's claimed they are choosing it, but then what do lonely women do? There are male escorts for sale, but then that's relatively rare. Women are more likely to travel together.

[In_The_Wind]

47. Thirty years ago I would have gladly paid for a dinner companion.

I hate eating alone in restaurants.

[treestar]

23. That's a different issue

and can be solved short of sex with strangers and its attending risks.

[Orrex]

31. Why is that a different issue?

It would seem central for at least a significant fraction of the client base.

That's a different issue and can be solved short of sex with strangers and its attending risks.

Maybe it can, maybe it can't. I suspect that this is a further illustration of why it's not a black and white issue.

[treestar]

36. How tough is it to find someone to talk to?

How weird you can find someone to pay to have sex with you but not someone to talk to you. I have a business idea now. I'll sell my attention and support.

Or can that be done?

[Orrex]

46. Sounds like a good idea. One suggestion, though:

Your original reply has a clearly judgmental tone, scoffing at the idea that anyone might seek to mitigate loneliness by paying for sex, even though this has been going on for decades and probably for millennia.

If you intend to sell your attention and support, you might want to research your target demographic a little.

[treestar]

114. If you're just lonely, why go so far as to have sex?

That's pretty much the most intimate thing you can do. If all you need is company, skip the risk of pregnancy and STDs and maybe assault or worse.

[Orrex]

124. You'd have to ask someone who partakes of such services.

Ask The Boxer, perhaps:

But I get no offers, just a come-on from the whores on seventh avenue
I do declare, there were times when I was so lonesome I took some comfort there.

I don't understand why you think that paid-for sex can't be used in this manner to mitigate loneliness. It apparently wouldn't work for you, and I don't believe that it would work for me, but I don't see why it can't work that way for others.

Further, DU rightly celebrates a woman's right and ability to express her sexuality. If a man (since we're talking about men in this discussion) elects to express his sexuality in this manner, by paying for the services of a prostitute, why should that be a problem for anyone?

For purposes of this discussion, we need to exclude sex by coercion either by a participant or by a third party; such coercion is criminal but doesn't illuminate the underlying need that men are seeking to address.

Also, HERE'S a somewhat NSFW article on cracked.com that may be informative, written by someone with first-hand experience in a related profession.

[LadyHawkAZ]

138. To take your thought a step further,

when a man elects to express his sexuality by being a sex worker, the fact gets glossed over in order to avoid discussion. Only female workers are allowed to be discussed- and only in specific, infantilizing terms that remove any possibility of agency.

This to me is the most telling part of the DU sex work battles.

[Orrex]

140. Terrific point!

I should perhaps clarify that I was addressing the issue of men-as-payors because that's how the OP was formulated, but your post makes a very good point that's definitely worth serious discussion.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

152. and that is why I have purposely made my comments in this thread gender free. I can not speak

for how anyone else in this thread has approached this subject matter but, I always Try to keep my comments gender free.

[treestar]

344. That's not equality

That there are a few male prostitutes does not make women who are somehow equal actors in that environment.

Most men can find a better job and do. That's why they are the ones with money to rent the women.

[LadyHawkAZ]

377. The number of female firefighters is slightly less than 4%

Yet somehow they still seem to be important. Roughly 20% of sex workers are male, but they're too insignificant in number to warrant a mention.

Thank you for making my point for me while at the same time managing to completely miss it yourself.

[treestar]

343. Express their sexuality?

Prostitution is exploiting the woman. How do you not see that as a transaction? You're pretending there might be a relationship there that "mitigates loneliness?" If they really were just lonely, they'd be better off talking to somebody, which would surely mitigate that way more than impersonal sex.

The Boxer was obviously a dummy, considering non prostitute sex to be an "offer," misogyny is that women are just for sex and it's unfair if none make you "offers" so there should be women available as products you just pay for.

This reminds me of the Eliot Rodgers debate on DU about being entitled to sex. No one is. If you don't get it, that does not mean there should be a class of people whose function is to act as things you can rent for it.

In a society where women really could "express their sexuality" there'd be no prostitutes, as sex would be for women as well as men.

[GoodwithWood]

413. Who's saying that there "should be a class of" anything.

This is simple economics, supply and demand, There is a demand for a service and those who are willing to provide it. No one is saying there should be anything, just acknowledging the there IS.

[dawg]

81. "I'll sell my attention and support."

We already have that. It's called "therapy" or "counselling" or "life coaching".

[redqueen]

85. Which demonstrates that the claim that that is why men pay prostitutes is a lie. nt

[dawg]

89. Oh, of course.

There might have been a sliver of truth to that argument back in ancient Greek times, or with the Japanese Geisha, but there are too many other opportunities for non-sexual attention in this world for that to hold any water at all today.

[treestar]

115. I'd say get that if loneliness is the issue

Any of those things. My charges will be cheaper too, since I have no psych degree. All much safer than involving oneself with prostitutes. And more available to both sexes equally, since women don't have to be for sale any more than men.

[In_The_Wind]

33. Oh. Right. SEX.

What was I thinking. Nevermind [img][/img]

[Blue_Tires]

50. #2 on the list is probably clients who need to

satisfy a *VERY* specific and unique predilection, the type that is usually impossible to find a compatible sexual partner through conventional dating, and/or those who require a specialist "expert"...

[redqueen]

54. They don't "need" to. They simply want to, and they have the extra money required

to be able to pay a person to do it.

These are privileged men, buying sex because they WANT to. Not because they "need" to.

[In_The_Wind]

59. It's understandable.

One may have a fantasy without wanting a reenactment.

also ...

Men who wish to be dominated are often powerful in real life preferring to keep that side of their life private.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

14. Interesting article, but it doesn't support the headline in the OP.

If you really wanted to list the 'main reasons', you'd be including statistical polling, or some sort of study, not merely random anecdotes from guys who admitted to paying prostitutes.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

90. Yes, I was expecting more of the former but, all we got was the later. n/t

seems simple enough to me.

sex for sale.

what is being sold? sex.

what is being bought? sex.

the end.

pretty simple really.

Whatever else transpires during the interaction ... is relevant only to the ones making the aforementioned contract. Negotiations for certain acts within the specified time frame ... it is still considered sex.

I don't care if the person gets off to watching someone iron their clothes. If that defines sex for them. Then that is sex.

[shedevil69taz]

16. Don't pay for SEX...

pay her to LEAVE...

[Laelth]

17. Humans are social creatures, and we need to be TOUCHED.

Most of us don't get enough touching, I suspect. Many men believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that they have to pay to get this very real biological need met--whether it be with a wife, a girlfriend, a partner, or a prostitute. The fact that so many men believe they have to pay in order to get this very real biological need met (just as we all have to pay for food), turns touch into a commodity like any other.

It should come as no surprise that many men are willing to pay for touch. We have to pay for everything else in this society, why not pay for touch too?



-Laelth

[treestar]

22. Does anybody ever pay for that?

I mean, then you could sell hugs to men too. Other than kissing booths at 1950s fairs, when do we see people selling touch?

[MineralMan]

35. Massage. People pay for that, too.

[treestar]

38. Maybe I should charge the next man who runs into me on a bus.

Really if you can't find anyone to touch you without paying for it, maybe that's telling that person something about their personality.

[The2ndWheel]

52. Their personality might be why they would have to pay for it

[Tuesday Afternoon]

80. Bingo.

and who knew that the solution for loneliness was sex with a complete and total stranger ... ?

that sounds like a revolving door to me.

problem: lonely
solution: have sex with a stranger.
end result: stranger leaves.
problem: back to lonely again.
solution: have sex with a stranger.
end result: stranger leaves.

and round and round you go.

where is it that I read: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

something like that ...

[treestar]

117. In the long run, a happier result might be

to work on the personality? I mean getting sex for money still can't be all that wonderful. Wouldn't it be a goal to try to have a real sexual relationship?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

145. but, that would mean having to work on their personality

[redqueen]

55. Massage isn't tossed out as a "need" that people simply must have.

And people don't get PTSD from being masseuses. They don't give massages because they're drug addicts and they're desperate. Thousands and thousands of women and children aren't kidnapped or coerced into being massage slaves to feed an ever increasing demand, created by entitled, privileged men.

[MineralMan]

60. I agree. The poster above mentioned touch as a need.

Another poster said that people don't pay for that, so I mentioned massage.

[Blue_Adept]

40. I'd certainly pay for a hug.

In the couple of weeks following my father's death back at the beginning of this month, I've been pretty much alone. My kids are off elsewhere for an extended vacation with their mother. I've been helping my mother through all of this and dealing with it and we've certainly hugged each other.

But I could have truly used a lot more hugs, comfort and simple non-sexual touching from elsewhere just to feel a connection with humanity.

[In_The_Wind]

63. I'm sorry, Blue_Adept.

[Blue_Adept]

77. Thanks

It's definitely not been an easy time. And essentially doing it alone has made it worse. It's at times like that when you realize just being held by someone can go such a long way towards easing your mental state.

[In_The_Wind]

91. I'm sorry you were alone.

I remember how lonely I felt when I realized I had not been held in over 4 years. I spent many years living as a loner. Although it hurt, it was easier than facing another potential divorce.

[Blue_Adept]

98. I was there too

Happened with my wife where after 10+ years together, she just had no interest in physical contact and pulled away. couples therapy and other exploratory things all didn't work. She didn't want to get divorced, but didn't want to be physically intimate, which is what I needed for my own mental health and well being. That was a long year in realizing we hadn't even hugged or touched much, but when I realized it and how much it was creating a depression for me, it made it easier to move on and find something that was better and healthier for me.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

144. Are you still married to this woman?

Please expand on your phrase =

move on

[Blue_Adept]

147. Nope

No longer married.

Move on to something that works better for both her and I - and for our kids. Rather than them living with the coldness and tension that was becoming part of daily life, that bled into theirs, they're now much better for the divorce and both of us moving on and being very engaged in co-parenting with the kids.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

149. may I ask =

Do you hug your kids or anybody that you are friends/family? Same gender/sex?

I just think it is so sad that you say you would pay for a hug.

Human touch is important to our emotional well being.

[Blue_Adept]

151. I do

I hug my kids pretty damn regularly. And my ex as we show that while we're not married, we still care for each other.

But within the context of the events of the last several weeks, where I'm basically alone as they're gone for the month, I've had precious little physical contact with others and would certainly pay for a hug, an even of being held and other such intimacies because I cannot get them at a time when I need it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

154. Do you belong to any social groups/church or other organizations?

I've had precious little physical contact with others and would certainly pay for a hug, an even of being held and other such intimacies because I cannot get them at a time when I need it.

Do you live nearby to close friends and make the effort to stay in touch with them?

[tblue37]

260. I wish you lived in one of those places where nice people stand around

with signs offering free hugs:

http://www.freehugscampaign.org

[Blue_Adept]

383. Thankfully

My kids have returned from their extended summer trip and I've gotten hugs in spades the last few days.

[Warren DeMontague]

244. There are professional cuddlers here in the Pac NW.

Non-sexual cuddlin'.

http://www.businessinsider.com/professional-cuddler-2014-7

[Laelth]

61. Prostitution isn't called "the oldest profession" for nothing.

People have been paying for "touch" for longer than human history has been recorded.

This is nothing new. Perhaps a review of a particular piece of art by the Great Trey Parker is in order.

http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s13e09-butters-bottom-bitch

-Laelth

[redqueen]

65. Again, men don't pay prostitutes for 'touch'.

They pay for sex.

[Laelth]

68. I find that distinction less than satisfying.

Sex is touch--deep, intimate, intense touch. People pay for it because they need it--just as we pay for food and shelter.

I am not grasping the distinction you are making.



-Laelth

[PassingFair]

136. You are being obtuse.

If people want only "touch", they can see a chiropractor or a massage therapist.

[99th_Monkey]

251. +10 n/t

[dawg]

84. Touch is extremely important.

Since my separation, there are times that I have really longed to embrace someone again. I sometimes feel like one of those paranoid little monkeys that were raised in a cage without their mothers.

[In_The_Wind]

87. People do pay to cuddle without sex:

[Laelth]

96. Precisely.

It's the touching that people really need--being the social animals that we are.

And we're willing to pay to have our needs met (just as we pay for food, shelter, and clothing).

-Laelth

[Squinch]

19. The article, beginning with the "just like every other long term couple except he pays her"

anecdote, followed up by the "we were just compressing a real romantic relationship" (!) anecdote, does not really have anything to do with the real reasons why men buy sex. The article is just a justification of "See? They're such nice guys! The women are so willing! Prostitution is great for everyone!"

I see a lot of comments here that, without seeming to realize it, boil down to, "Women are commodities, so why not?"

I am seeing a lot of "We biologically need to do this so we have to buy it."

I see nothing that explores why, if it is a biological need, the vast majority of those buying sex are men. And that DOES boil down to privilege. Men buy sex because they want to commoditize women, and they can afford to. And because there are enough women who need the money so much they will sell their bodies.

And PS, if the article really wanted to explore why men buy sex, they wouldn't have left out all those guys who are buying the tens of thousands of fifteen year olds on the streets in any major city in the country. The vast majority of prostitutes don't have their clients wiring money into their bank accounts. It usually isn't that kind of transaction.

[redqueen]

57. Study after study shows most sex buyers are in relationships.

Study after study shows they do it because they can't get their partner to do whatever they want (and I'm sure these men are honest and tell their partners that they're cheating) or because rhey want to 'be the boss', 'be in control', etc.

The neoliberal push to normalize this destructive, multi-billion dollar industry is really ramping up. It was inevitable once the Nordic model started spreading.

[jeff47]

133. Why is the current situation better?

The neoliberal push to normalize this destructive, multi-billion dollar industry is really ramping up. It was inevitable once the Nordic model started spreading.

Why is keeping prostitution as a black market better?

It appears to hurt the prostitutes, both physically and mentally. It makes it much harder for them to "go legit". It makes it much harder for them to report abuse. It makes it harder to find underage prostitutes, because all prostitutes are hiding from the law.

There's prostitutes in Iran, which has the death penalty for both the prostitute and the customer. So it doesn't appear that prostitution can be successfully eliminated via banning it.

So why is continuing the ban better than bringing it into the light where regulation can stop the worst of the problems?

[Squinch]

182. Once again, you have two choices.

You can legalize or you can not. When you legalize, you increase trafficking. Trafficking is slavery. Trafficking is the use of people in horrible ways completely against their will until they are used up and usually dead. That is what trafficking is. So you can choose prostitution as it is today, or you can choose trafficking. Which do you choose?

And in case you are thinking "there are no studies that say trafficking increases due to legalization," I will repost this again. I suggest you read it carefully before you try and debunk it because everyone who has tried to debunk it so far here has only succeeded in misreading it. What it shows is that the US is the kind of nation where the increase in trafficking due to legalization would be likely to be very significant.

A 2012 study published in World Development, “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” investigates the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows into high-income countries. The researchers — Seo-Yeong Cho of the German Institute for Economic Research, Axel Dreher of the University of Heidelberg and Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Political Science — analyzed cross-sectional data of 116 countries to determine the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows. In addition, they reviewed case studies of Denmark, Germany and Switzerland to examine the longitudinal effects of legalizing or criminalizing prostitution. The study’s findings include:

Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers.

On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows. The effect of legal prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint.

Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows.

Cross-country comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with criminalization and increased with legalization.

The type of legalization of prostitution does not matter — it only matters whether prostitution is legal or not. Whether third-party involvement (persons who facilitate the prostitution businesses, i.e, “pimps”) is allowed or not does not have an effect on human trafficking inflows into a country.

Legalization of prostitution itself is more important in explaining human trafficking than the type of legalization.

Democracies have a higher probability of increased human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise.

- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/human-rights/legalized-prostitution-human-trafficking-inflows#sthash.nUI0kGjw.dpuf

[jeff47]

237. You need to differentiate between involuntary and voluntary trafficking.

Your study does not. Anyone from another country is declared a victim. That isn't always the case. Sometimes, it's a "least bad" option from a poor country.

For example, Pentameter Two in the UK. Interviews of many thousands of prostitutes, and offered them free travel home. Because, like your study, people were convinced that involuntary trafficking was an enormous problem.

They found 11 victims.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated

Certainly there have been real victims, some of whom have been compensated as victims of crime. The internal analysis of Pentameter Two, obtained by the Guardian, reveals that after six months of raids across the UK, 11 women were finally "made safe". This clashes with early police claims that Pentameter had rescued 351 victims. By the time that Brain held his press conference in July last year, that figure had been reduced to 167 victims who were said to have been "saved from lives of abuse, exploitation and misery".

However, the internal analysis shows that supposed victims variously absconded from police, went home voluntarily, declined support, were removed by the UK Borders Agency or were prosecuted for various offences.

Now, it is quite awful for these women to feel becoming a prostitute in a wealthy country is a "least bad" option. We should be working to improve their lot back home.

But they're also people capable of making decisions, not a victim the instant they cross a border.

Also you'll note that prostitution being legal in the UK made it much easier to find and interview the prostitutes to see if they were being trafficked.

[Squinch]

248. You guys will just pull anything out of your asses to justify this, won't you? Voluntary

trafficking? Really?

[R B Garr]

176. And depending on the type of sex worker, the sex workers have plenty of "rules" of their own

They want references, condoms, no this, no that, costs broken down by performed task, timed 30 minute sessions. So rules for them are fine, but a woman in a relationship must put out on demand or the sneaky creep will go behind her back. Eew, they can have him.

[redqueen]

194. And that is why human trafficking thrives where prostitution is legal.

It is easier for the traffickers to do business, and there are more men willing to pay for illegal prostitutes so they don't have to follow those rules.

[sibelian]

20. I have an idea.

Why not... ask them?

You know. Instead of making things up.

[Blue_Adept]

41. Isn't that what the article did? Ask them?

Or am I missing something?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

94. That is exactly what the article did. Interesting anecdotal article. Yes. n/t

[treestar]

21. the patriarchy, male privilege, leads to the fact that

women are buyable by men.

Women end up for sale because of the men owning them, even if they claim it's for a short while.

Like the misogynistic saying they don't pay the women for sex, they pay them to go away afterward. They don't want the more expensive version right now. Or the guy on a date who thinks he should get sex because he paid for dinner.

Why are there no male prostitutes? Because men are not products for our use. They are people.

This is what bugs me about people claiming it's "freedom" to do "sex work." It's not that which is the problem. It's the fact female sexuality can be owned, bought, etc.

[Nitram]

27. Uh, actually, there are male prostitutes.

Amazing the misconceptions among some of the posters here.

[treestar]

34. For gay men, perhaps?

Yeah there are men who stay home with the children while their wives work, too. There are male nurses.

We're talking about the generality of history and society, in which there are exceptions but the rule is what the society leans on.

There were blacks who owned slaves in the ante-bellum South. That doesn't mean every black person was therefore equal and had that potential.

[Nitram]

43. treestar, are you unfamiliar with the term gigolo?

[kcr]

58. I'm sure most DUers are familiar with that term

Now, where's your evidence that that they aren't the rare exception and are as common as female prostitutes?

[treestar]

113. Exactly.

They use that rare exception, but it does not prove the sexes are equal any more than the few free blacks who owned their own black slaves meant that blacks had equal rights to whites in the antebellum South! (And I have run into righties saying that!)

[treestar]

112. that is not just sex

so you're the one unfamiliar with the term. That's not the same as a prostitute.

[Smarmie Doofus]

92. Yes , for gay men.

We're people too, ya know. And dare I say it...... we are even MEN.

It's been a pretty commonly recognized fact of life that...esp in urban gay male subculture... that male prostitution has never been in short supply in the gay male community .

Which is not to say that ALL or MOST gay men pay for sex. ( Although that's probably been studied somewhere.) Or have ever done so.

What it MAY mean ( and probably does, imo) is that variablility among sexual partners is something males... hetero and not.... are hard wired... in evolutionary terms.... to seek out.

So... at least here... nature is the likely culprit.

As opposed to patriarchy.

[treestar]

116. How about lesbian prostitutes?

I'm thinking women don't buy sex because they are the commodity, but there, I would suppose it would be.

It's women who tend to not buy sex, gay or straight, even if there are a few male prostitutes for women, or lesbian prostitutes for gay women. It's men who can think of it as a commodity to buy for the most part, due to centuries of patriarchal society.

[MADem]

119. Americans are so provincial at times!

This is quite common in Europe and has been for a very long time. It's usually a longer term relationship, with gifts, money, and a place to live being part of the bargain. It is not given any notice. Here in USA, though, it's Oooh-La-La time! It's a business, but it's a "naughty business" here and thus is more discreet. The disapproving tsk-tsk of a puritanical society...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/fashion/16movie.html?pagewanted=all

http://hellobeautiful.com/2014/01/30/what-is-rent-a-gent/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-561156/Sun-sand-sex-stupidity-Why-thousands-middle-aged-women-obsessed-holiday-gigolos.html

http://www.cowboys4angels.com/about.html

http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/love,-sex-and-relationships/the-women-who-hire-male-escorts-20140203-31wtv.html


http://www.thegloss.com/2012/04/02/sex-and-dating/male-escort-for-women-906/

[treestar]

120. They aren't just renting sex though

Gee, as a middle aged woman, I should look into it, lol.

[MADem]

123. Well, pretty much, they are.

The other stuff is just window dressing to make it all seem a bit more respectable.

"This is Georges, he cleans the pool...."

"But--you don't HAVE a pool!"

"Oh, silly me, I meant he washes the windows!"

Also, I think many women (not all, certainly) prefer the "boyfriend experience" to make it seem a bit less clinical. The "girlfriend experience" is supposedly very popular with male geeks who hire prostitutes in Silicon Valley-- perhaps that's a product of sensitivity/intelligence? They want a relationship, even if it's a "faux" one.

[treestar]

218. I'd be more concerned about improving myself

to be ready for a real one. Not that I've managed to do that ever, lol.

It would be like cheating in school. You can't enjoy getting an A when you know you didn't really get it.

[msanthrope]

198. As a fellow middle-aged woman, I invite you to. nt

[LittleBlue]

129. If you've never heard of male prostitutes for women

then you're not knowledgeable enough to have a discussion about this.

Everything you've written in this thread indicates you don't understand the concept of needing sex. Which is fine. Some people don't need it. Some people don't even want it. Just like introverts don't need to frequently socialize. Your comments are no different than an introvert claiming that extroverts don't need to socialize because the introvert himself doesn't need it.

[hifiguy]

139. Thank you for bringing some common sense into this discussion

as you usually do.

[treestar]

219. No, my comments are about the patriarchy

As I said before, right wingers with Confederate insanity pointed out to me there were free blacks who owned slaves. You wouldn't agree that makes it all equal, even in the ante-bellum South.

And the very rare male prostitute selling sex to women does not undo centuries of men buying sex because women are commodities.

You're dodging the issue. Me personally has nothing to do with it. It's the patriarchy that made women's bodies sale-able to men, rare exceptions notwithstanding.

And if you "need" sex that bad, learn enough social skill to get it without paying. In these times, it's ridiculous not to be able to do that. And surely it would be a better experience.

[LittleBlue]

221. Did the mythical patriarchy make the other markets?

Did the patriarchy create the market for drugs? Did they create the market for labor?

There is no such thing as the patriarchy, markets are created when something isn't in sufficient supply to be free for everyone. Rocks are free. Shiny rocks cost money, they're rare. Shiny rocks cut into gems are even rarer and more desirable, they cost more.

Sex is no different. Women can get sex easily because there are more willing men than women. Hence the market for men.

And if you "need" sex that bad, learn enough social skill to get it without paying. In these times, it's ridiculous not to be able to do that. And surely it would be a better experience.

Your first sentence exposes the fact that you don't see sex as necessary as men do. Which is understandable, your gender is listed as "female". You can't possibly understand what it feels like to go without sex as a man.

Prostitution has persisted regardless of laws, regardless of social stigma, regardless of religions making it a sin. It's a need for a lot of people in the way that socializing is a need. And it will continue forever.

[treestar]

275. No it didn't create the drug market

It created the market in women's bodies. It's not mythical. How can anyone deny its existence?

[LittleBlue]

276. The desire for sex created the market for sex

Obviously. If men hated sex, this so-called patriarchy of yours would still exist, but there would be no market for sex. If sex were in such plentiful supply that it could be obtained by every man, everywhere and at anytime for free, then there would be no market.

"Patriarchy" is as simplistic as saying terrorists attack us for our freedoms.

[treestar]

308. You're talking about sex as if it is something for men

to obtain from women. Women only exist to provide this to men Clearly you don't think the sexes are equal.

Patriarchy cannot be dismissed like that. It's the system of male superiority that has existed for centuries and only recently been beaten down a bit. Women could not do many things and were considered chattel of their husbands.

[LittleBlue]

314. No, you're wrong

Women only exist to provide this to men

No one ever said this, nor even implied it. You're pulling that one straight out of your rear end. Quote me if you really believe I said that, don't misrepresent my statements by substituting your own. If you believe, as you say, that women are chattel, that women exist to provide sex for men, that's your problem. Don't project your horrifically sexist beliefs on me. I refuse to engage in this libelous strawman you created.

I explained this very clearly to you: it's mostly a market for men because, for men, there is less sex available than is desired. That's it. No talk of chattel, no talk of women existing to provide men for sex. Quote me if you believe what you say or take it back.

[treestar]

322. That's the rational conclusion of your statements

You don't have to have put it in those words to show that's how you see it.

You're not entitled to sex. Period. And no one should have to resort to selling it to you in order to survive.

[Smarmie Doofus]

28. There are plenty of male prostitutes. n/t

[Blue_Adept]

44. Only on TV

Or so the argument I've seen goes. There's not many in reality for women is how that's followed up with. Male prostitutes for women is a product of the Hollywood TV/movie machine.

[B Calm]

72. Will HBO's HUNG return this fall?

[Blue_Adept]

78. Nope

Third season was the final season. it was not renewed for a fourth.

[B Calm]

79. Damn, I liked that show!

[smirkymonkey]

213. Yes, like Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute...

[The2ndWheel]

62. With the countless stories from women

complaining about unsolicited attention from men, maybe women just don't have to pay for male attention. Sounds like women can basically walk out of the house and it's all around them. Whereas, you don't generally hear men complain about all of the unwanted attention they get from women, so men are more likely to pay for that attention if they're not getting it.

[redqueen]

69. Here's the hard truth -

Most women don't orgasm from penetration. So your idea that women can just pick some random man off the street and have sex that's in any way worth the time is ludicrous.

Furthermore, men can have sex just as easily, they just have to lower their standards.

[The2ndWheel]

102. Alright, women can be/have to be more particular in this area

It's even less reason why more women would pay for male attention, because it might be a giant waste of money.

If it was as easy for men in general to have sex as it is for women in general, men wouldn't have to pay for it as much as they do.

Not many people, male of female, want to pay for companionship of any kind. Nobody grows up hoping one day they'll get the chance to pay someone else to talk to them, have sex with them, or whatever else.

[redqueen]

105. Men don't "have" to pay for it.

And most of the ones who do are married / in relationships.

And your statement that its so easy for women to get sex is misleading. The sex that is supposedly easy for us to get is often a waste of time. Men could get sex as easily if they lowered their standards.

Privileged men who can afford to pay for sex are not pitiful, desperate, lonely men. They are privileged, entitled, and do not think they should have to settle for sex that isn't facilitated by capitalism and the patriarchy.

[KansDem]

130. Correct me if I'm wrong...

...but "penetration" isn't the only way to achieve orgasm.

So, wouldn't someone who is "stimulating" in more than just conversation be "worth the time?"

[treestar]

312. The reason that's the case is they insist on looking at women as sex providers

Quit whining and relate to a woman as a person. They are equal.

[smirkymonkey]

189. Really, how many rich women choose to express their sexual "freedom" in this way.

My guess would be that it is very few. Women who need the money have to justify it somehow in order to keep their pride. It's unfortunate that anyone should have to resort to this to make a living.

[GliderGuider]

32. Compared to marriage, a much lower level of emotional, physical and financial investment isrequired.

If all someone wants is a sexual outlet, anyway.

[dr.strangelove]

42. It seems simple to me

Its a product many men want and you acquire what you want by either price, gift or theft. Price seems the easiest and least risky way to get sex.

[MineralMan]

48. You left off one thing: Mutual attraction.

Sex doesn't only happen when there is payment, a gift or theft. It occurs most frequently when two people both want it to occur.

Sex is not a product, in most cases. That's a very cynical way to look at something that most people do without any consideration of a financial bargain.

[redqueen]

64. Thanks for pointing out that sex isn't a product.

The commmoditization of sex is disturbingly common.

[johnlucas]

393. It's even BETTER than a product. It's a present. It's a gift.

Stop with the talking points please.
It's the oldest profession for a reason.

There's nothing wrong with sex & there's nothing wrong with what 2 adults decide to do in the process of having that sex.
So long as it doesn't bring harm to either of the adults, of course.

YOU WILL NEVER END PROSTITUTION.
Why? Other women won't LET you, that's why.
They're not children, they are adults & they can make their own adult decisions.
They're not gonna trade the "patriarchy" for the "matriarchy".
Is it REALLY better for women to tell other women how to live their lives vs. men?
Tyranny is tyranny no matter which gender is in charge.
John Lucas

Excerpt from We Are Here To Win by a collection of Filipina prostitutes.
Something you need to read, redqueen. They're talking to you.

Most of us, sex workers, have gone through this process of acculturation in our lives. We have learned to accept that speaking up and being listened to is a privilege that the poor and the powerless are not entitled to. It does not help that we are forced to hide who we are since the society in which we live has ostracized us. That should make it easy for anyone to understand why it was not difficult for the feminist (abolitionists) to appropriate our voices and to start speaking for us. Society has made us invisible so to have women of power speak for us was a blessing or so we thought. It was not a blessing. It was exploitation. They were not speaking for us, they were speaking for themselves in our name. They have assumed the role of the “amos” and again we whimpered in silence as they robbed us of our voices. Most Filipinos, the poor and the powerless, when faced by a desperate situation there is nothing they could do about would most often take the fatalistic way out. They would say “leave it to fate” (bahala na). And “bahala na”, it was for us.

For years, we could only stand , mouths gagged, as we watched our new “amos” build their careers speaking for other underprivileged and “mindless” women in their list who they claim do not have the ability to speak for themselves. We are on top of that list. We could hardly figure them out. Maybe because we have not seen the corridors of the university like they all did that they baffle us. They speak so fiercely about fighting for women’s right to self-determination but clearly that does not include us. Perhaps by women, they only meant themselves. We also do not understand the arrogance by which they have anointed themselves our saviors like it was their manifest destiny even when clearly we do not want them saving us because there is no reason to. What we want is save ourselves from them instead.

They do not only confuse us. They intimidate us. They speak in jargons we do not understand. We guess it was their way of telling us they know better and so we should just leave it to them to run our lives. But we really do not care about “patriarchy”, “commodification” and other words they spew. Those matters don’t bring food on our table nor pay for our rent. All we are interested in is work undisturbed.

We grew up with succession of “amos” taking command of our lives which in reality were never truly our own. It is time we claim our lives back. It is time we find our voices because only in finding our voices back can we say our lives are our own. It would not be easy but it is possible. It can take years to get ourselves back to what we really should be but we are undaunted.

We must serve notice to our self-appointed saviours/masters that their time is up. They can’t take our jobs away from us in the same way we can’t take them away from their careers even if they have built them under our expense. Under the bus is no place for any human. And yes, whatever the society or anyone thinks of us, we are human beings deserving of every right accorded everybody else. Those rights are not for anyone to dispense. It is for us to claim and we are going to claim them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

170. 'Mutual attraction'

requires both participants to be attractive, at least to the other involved.

People who are, by the aesthetic standards of the society in which they reside are thus basically out of luck on he 'mutual attraction' front. While it might be nice to think there's 'someone for everyone' out there, the chances of you finding that one person out of 7 billion are pretty slim if you're 'ugly' to most of the people around you. In that sense, media have done us no favours by pushing unrealistic standards of beauty, to make even more people more likely to consider their potential partners less attractive.

[MineralMan]

173. Interesting. Attractiveness isn't based on a standard.

It is based on personal, individual taste. On Monday, I'll be going to the Minnesota State Fair. I do that every year, and see thousands of people while I'm there. There are a lot of couples among those people. Are they all attractive? Not to me, certainly. But, apparently, to each other, they are. Couples of every variety and made up of two individuals. I sometimes look at people in such situations, and often see couples who are very, very different in appearance. And yet, each couple finds partners who have been attracted to the other.

It's not just appearance that determines attractiveness. Of that I'm certain. There's much more to it than that. Much more.

So, I'm not buying the argument that you're presenting here. I know that, for me, "ugly" has little to do with physical appearance and more to do with personality. I know a lot of other people who feel the same way. Ugly is as ugly does, pretty much, almost always. I've known many people who fit the general mold of physical attractiveness who were truly ugly.

So, thanks for your reply. I have to disagree with it, though.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

179. Your 'personal, individual taste' is in large part based on societal standards.

And while I did highlight aesthetics, you can certainly consider people ugly in a variety of ways that aren't linked simply to 'looks'. For instance, I would guess that you probably consider someone like Laura Ingraham or Sarah Palin 'ugly', based upon their worldviews.

So no, there isn't a single standard, but there are multiple ones that are shaped by society as a whole, by your family, by your social circles.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

215. Very true. We are socialized to find beautiful that which is presented to us as beautiful.

Sure, there is individual taste, but there is undeniably a strong societal influence on that taste. And that's true for both physical and non-physical characteristics.

[smirkymonkey]

334. +100

[BainsBane]

225. Human beings as objects to acquire "by price, gift or theft"

Therein lies the problem that goes far beyond prostitution. It's a corruption of the soul that influences all of society and normalizes the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few. It justifies mass exploitation of labor, sweat shops, and growing inequality. It is the prevailing ethos of capitalism.

Such transactions are hardly the least risky, however--certainly in terms of health.

[betsuni]

45. Could someone explain the "you don't pay them for sex, you pay them to leave" thing?

If it's about human contact and touch and sexual need, why is it so disgusting to spend time with someone you've just had sex with?

[MineralMan]

49. For some men, sex is something that is all about them,

rather than a mutual thing. For those men, there is no desire for contact beyond the act itself.

[dawg]

99. I think it's a cover for bruised pride.

I don't think many men like to feel proud of the fact that they have to pay someone to have sex with them. So they make this little dodge. "I didn't pay for sex. I paid so she would leave afterword."

Very misogynistic and angry. Implies that women are only good for sex. In any other context, it's worth money to make them leave.

But mostly it's just a psychological dodge for the fact that they had to pay for it.

I don't think I would ever pay for sex. And I have a lot of good reasons for that. But I also have one very bad reason for that. I am prideful. In my mind, that would be admitting something about myself that I don't think is true and am not willing to settle for.

[redqueen]

163. "Very misogynistic and angry."

Exactly. It makes me wonder how the reasoning is repeated here so casually. And how anyone could defend an industry where the 'clients' are so routinely bigoted and hateful toward the 'workerss'.

Progressives usually shun people who shit all over service workers. When it comes to this industry, it's given a pass.




For reference (NSFW. Trigger warning.):

http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com

http://invisible-men-canada.tumblr.com/

http://www.hookerlooker.biz/forum/

[jeff47]

127. They're essentially looking for something a little better than masturbation

He's not looking for her to leave the instant he climaxes. He's looking for her to not seek any further relationship.

ETA: You'll often get this reasoning from someone who has been "taken to the cleaners" in a divorce or two.

[Squinch]

304. I believe the people who are saying it's about human touch are wrong. Right now,

a number of companies are developing robots who feel like humans for the purpose of sex. When they are operational, I guarantee that all that need for "human touch and contact" will go right out the window.

It's not about seeing someone as human. It's about having the permission to NOT see them as human.

[smirkymonkey]

335. Yes, I never understood why someone would want to have sex

with someone that they would just want to disappear afterward. I can't understand sleeping with someone that you disregarded that much so that you would want them to go away immediately afterward.

[Rex]

51. Sex?

What do I win!?

[JustAnotherGen]

53. Next question

What motivates men to pay men to sleep with them?

Not making light - it's a serious question.

And the answers to it might have a lot of very interesting layers. Friends with an Entertainment Attorney that lives down the street from Brian Singer. B and his husband have a lot of good gossip - and the number one thing they like to gossip about is the Gay For Pay and Kneepads (their words) crowd in the entertainment industry. And because of their circles and orientation - they have a lot to say about 'power' and what it does to people.

Whether a millionaire motion picture producer/agent/director or a blue collar guy in the midwest - male or female prostitute - there's a heavy piece of 'power' for those who pay.

[Laelth]

67. People pay for touch.

Whether it be man-on-man or woman-on-woman or woman-on-man seems irrelevant to me. Humans are social animals, and we have a very real need to be touched. We're willing to pay for it, in fact, and always have been willing to do so. Prostitution isn't called "the oldest profession" for nothing. Touch is a very real human need that people have been willing to pay for since before human history began to be recorded.

-Laelth

[JustAnotherGen]

70. I can't relate

I've never been without it - affection that is.

[Laelth]

76. I am happy for you. Your need for human touch is being met.

My experience has been that most women can get their need for human touch met whenever they want to do so. Men can not. This explains why most prostitutes are women, and most of the people who "hire" prostitutes are men.



-Laelth

[JustAnotherGen]

88. My husband would disagree

But he's from Italy - and has a strong group of men from his community there - within 20 miles of us.

Maybe the men in our culture need to open up to affection as an every day thing?

BTW - he reads here -does not post - that's me taking dictation from him via text. *sigh* It's not easy being me.

Also - there is a strong element of power and the ability to relate to women outside of ourselves.

A powerless man (one who FEELS that way) will approach the woman who is powerless to gain power.

A man who does not always see ALL women as human beings - same. As an 'it' - a woman becomes something.

Years ago I read the book - You'll Never Make Love In This Town Again. Back in the 1990's - but I remember - no one sued because they knew it was the truth.

Read it if you can find it - you'll never watch Top Gun or any Don Simpson movie the same again.

You might also - maybe - see the segment of men for whom women really are 'things' to discard come to full life.

[Laelth]

93. It is, perhaps, tragic that capitalism turns everything into a commodity.

I.e., something to be bought and sold, but my experience has been that touch (a very real human need) is as much a commodity as anything else in this capitalist society, and it is bought and sold like everything else.

I am not sure what your husband is "disagreeing" with, but my argument is directly addressed to the OP who asks, "Why do men pay for sex?" My response is that people need touch and that people are willing to pay to have that human need met. History, to the extent it shows that prostitution has always existed, supports my argument. People will pay to get their needs met (whether it be food, shelter, or touch). They always have done so, and they always will.

-Laelth

[JustAnotherGen]

126. This statement

My experience has been that most women can get their need for human touch met whenever they want to do so. Men can not.

American men cannot - because in general they are cold to each other - that's the foreigners perspective. IF they shake hands - it's that.

But they give bro hugs in his circle of friends. And kiss cheeks.

[redqueen]

196. Excellent point. nt

[redqueen]

71. "... there's a heavy piece of 'power' for those who pay."

A simple fact that neoliberals seem determined to bury.

[JustAnotherGen]

73. I'm not going to though

That's why I brought it up in the way that I did. Maybe some man will really begin to understand the many solide points you've made on this when he realizes his son could be 'prey' - right here in the USA.

[riqster]

56. Based on my bandstand observations of men and strippers,

Loneliness and laziness seem to be two key reasons that cause men to pay women for sexual interactions. (Note: not saying strippers = hookers. Just saying that men give money to both types of workers in order to get an erotic experience of some sort.)

Some men don't want to work at a relationship, or even at picking someone up. They buy the appearance of intimacy because it's easy.

Some men are lonely and don't know what to do about it.

I don't understand either mindset. But I am a bit of a prude dude when it comes to my own life.

[Squinch]

348. But why is it, the vast majority of the time, men? There are women who are lazy and

lonely too, but the number of women who use male prostitutes is very small compared to the number of men. And in the two cases where I have personally known of it happening, the women were extremely wealthy.

If this is such a biological imperative that someone must buy sex when it is not readily available, or if it is simply due to loneliness as you say, then women would be just as likely to rent a man's body as a man is to rent a woman's body. But that isn't the case. And that is where we see that there is male entitlement built in to this transaction.

[Nay]

404. Lonely women aren't lonely because they aren't having sex --

they're lonely because they have few emotional connections to others. Sex, for lots of women, is not primarily an emotional connection, esp if it is with a stranger. If you know that most men can have one-off sex with just about anyone, why would you think sex with a man was some kind of deep connection that would relieve your loneliness and provide a meaningful experience? When for that man it was just a fuck? Well, you wouldn't, and thus women don't look to sex with male prostitutes as any way to make a connection with others.

I think the reason women don't use male prostitutes much is that they don't relieve loneliness or increase a feeling of connection -- in women. They may do so for men, who seem to connect "loneliness" with "no fucking." For women, the totality of a relationship, if it is a good relationship, has much more to do with relieving loneliness and feeling a connection than having sex does. That's why our interactions with our friends, children, neighbors, classmates, etc., are far more important for our feelings of connection than sex ever was.

[B Calm]

66. Back when I was in the Navy you might only be in a port of call for a few days

then you were back out to sea. When you are 18 yrs old and horny, with and no time to build a relationship with a women, what options do you have when you want and need sex?

[redqueen]

74. Nobody "needs" sex with someone else. Your option is your hand. nt

[B Calm]

75. Seriously, LOL

Masturbating with 75 sailors in your bedroom!

[redqueen]

86. Seriously, LOL. All those men not masturbating for months at a time. nt

[MineralMan]

97. Oh, they didn't abstain. That I can guarantee.

Where privacy is in short supply, people find privacy anyhow, one way or another. The "only two days in port" thing is just an excuse. I spent 15 months at a remote USAF base in Turkey when I was 20. There were even legal, government-run brothels just off the base. Most of the men, and that base was all men, did not visit those brothels. We all did without sex with other people for 15 months. We all managed, somehow.

Did we want sex? Sure we did. Did we need it? Well, no. The old "blue balls" argument never was real, although it's still being tried, I'm sure.

[redqueen]

100. The amount of excuses and justifications used to push this neoliberal agenda here is disturbing.

But sadly not surprising.

[MineralMan]

107. Not surprising, as you say.

Rationalizations for depersonalizing relationships between men and women are a constant, I think. Establishing and maintaining a close relationship is not easy. There's always a lot of things to work out between any two people to arrive at a mutually rewarding balance. Many people are too impatient and self-absorbed to deal with that process, I think. Such people are forever trying to find some shortcut to getting their own needs taken care of. That leads to a whole group of problems for both individuals and society.

This is all complicated even more for adults, once they're out of school and in careers of any kind. The opportunities to build friendships that may lead to romantic and sexual relationships are fewer out in the real world. The odds that any two people at random will become a couple are very long, indeed, so frustration is all part of adulthood.

For many men and women, finding a compatible and supportive partner is a tough job. Many give up. Many never try. Many attempt to substitute other things for real relationships. Many look in the wrong places or don't bother to put themselves in situations where they will have opportunities to meet people who might become part of a relationship. Many people settle for relationships that end up falling apart due to imbalance.

It's hard. Not everyone wants to work at it. And so we have a lot of people who simply don't have good, equal relationships. It's very unfortunate for all involved.

[redqueen]

159. There are tons of people who want NSA sex.

Fewer women than men, but they are out there too.

There have never been more opportunities to meet people who want that. Adult Friend Finder, Criagslist, etc. all provide ready access to people who want nothing but sex.

People ignore the privilege and power inherent in these transactions, as well as the inherent and destructive dehumanization involved. Why, I don't know. Not that many men buy sex. Fewer men and women willingly sell it. Why the interests of a privileged few (and of course those at the top, who profit the most from the sex industry) trump the social costs is an ongoing mystery.

[MineralMan]

161. NSA sex is fine. I've been in several relationships like

that during my lifetime. Almost all of them when I was under 35 years old. Sometimes it was "friend" sex with people I knew well and at some time when that seemed like a good idea. A few times it was casual sex with someone I really didn't know very well, again, when that seemed like a good idea to both of us.

After I got a little older, I found long-term monogamous relationships more rewarding and pretty much stopped having NSA sex, even though there were opportunities from time to time. There were a few occasions, but fewer and fewer as I got older. Today, in my near-dotage, I doubt that such a thing will occur again. I don't have the impulse to engage with someone I'm not in a relationship with.

I have several people of both sexes in their 20s among my acquaintances. All of them engage in casual sex sometimes, often with friends they know well, according to them, along with the odd instant one-off hook-up. Good for them, I say. I've never had a problem with that, and it's a lot of fun, most of the time.

[mopinko]

356. there are a lot of broken people out there.

my stbex grew up with constant contention in his family, and grew a shell around his heart. it was always hard, and it was mostly my willingness to believe that he was who he thought he was that kept us together for a looong time.
but he couldnt hack getting older. his midlife crisis took us down.
i dont know if he ever paid for sex. it would not surprise me. he walks past many a working girl every day. but he loved his porn. more than me.
because he is a broken person.

it sucks to be him. he is twisting and flailing in pain right now. he did try.
but he gave up.
i gave up, too.

there is a howling void where the heart should be for a whoooole lot of people out there.

[MineralMan]

385. I know that's true. I've met some people who

could not find any joy in their lives. That's so sad, but I know that many people are in that situation.

[mopinko]

387. no joy. exactly.

i have had my share of struggles w depression. i have a good AD right now. i have said many times that it doesnt make me happier, but it does let me suck up the joy that i do have. i was insulated from a lot of joy over the years. now it is all mine.
it is a good thing for me.
but my heart still breaks for someone who cannot even find joy in a loving touch.

there are many of them out there, as you say.
so sad.

[B Calm]

142. I always thought it was a republican agenda to control what one does in bed. .

[redqueen]

157. "What one does in bed" can be either a private matter or a commercial transaction.

When it comes to money, suddenly conservatives and neoliberals find a lot of common ground.

[Warren DeMontague]

262. "common ground".... that's funny.

[LadyHawkAZ]

231. it magically becomes "progressive" sometimes, because magic.

Supporting consenting adults becomes "libertarian", because wanting a safe, regulated industry with worker protections is totally a hallmark of libertarianism. Really. See? Magic!

[hifiguy]

264. LOL

You are one of the reasons I came back to DU. No one cuts through the totalitarian bullshit better than you do, LH!

[LadyHawkAZ]

318. I'm glad I had something to do with that

We missed ya, hifi.

[hifiguy]

319. Aww, shucks. Thanks.

[Warren DeMontague]

245. This is a bug?

It sounds like a feature!

[Eleanors38]

257. Even the sonar dome isn't off-limits.

[Sheldon Cooper]

104. Despite what lots of people seem to think, sex is not a basic biological 'need'.

The only physical needs we have are oxygen, water, and food, in that order. Everything else is just desire. So if you rent someone else's body to meet your physical desires, let's not pretend that it's fulfilling an actual need. It's not.

[Blue_Adept]

106. So mental needs don't enter into the equation?

Only physical needs are what must be dealt with for survival?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

146. you are conflating surviving with living and growing.

[redqueen]

164. There is no mental need to have sex with another person.

There is a mental need for affection, which one can get from friends and loved ones.

[opiate69]

178. "sexual intimacy" is tier 3 of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

As anyone who ever actually passed a psychology class well attest.

[MadrasT]

240. Maslow had an opinion.

Which is "proof" of exactly nothing.



Sex with another person is not a "need". The real fact that asexual people exist should be proof enough.

[laundry_queen]

249. +1 nt

[Warren DeMontague]

254. I suppose it's proof that asexual people, who define themselves as different from sexual people,

don't "need" sex.

"Need" is a funny word.

[hifiguy]

266. One accepted by most psychologists

in the Western world. Not that that should count for anything.

[opiate69]

280. LMAO... yeah, he was just some dudebro, with like, an opinion, man...

It's not like his "opinion" has been expounded upon by other qualified "dudez", and, ya know, refined and accepted as a valid (and highly respected) psychological concept or anything....
But, do go on minimizing and mocking psychological needs. I mean, they're just not important, are they?

[Warren DeMontague]

255. yet oddly enough, some people get very upset if the concept of "porn addiction" is challenged.

even though alleged "porn addicts" often don't look at quantitatively more porn than anyone else, in fact often less, they're just consumed with guilt because they're surrounded by messaging -usually, but not always, religious- that tells them porn is "bad".

But for someone to be addicted to something, a so-called "mental need" would have to be a component, would it not?


One would think.

[hifiguy]

263. All I can say is

[Jim Lane]

236. By that standard, children don't need education and women don't need access to contraception.

There are DU threads about school issues and about the Hobby Lobby decison. Go into one of those threads and give voice to such a narrow view of the "needs" people have. Be prepared to get flamed hairless, and justifiably so.

You're obviously correct in that sense that children who never go to school and women who can never get any kind of birth control won't die as a direct consequence. (Yes, there might be some differences in mortality rates based on education, contraception, sex, or my having the full-time services of a nutritionist/cook, but that doesn't make all those things needs in the narrow sense you're using.) The word "need" is commonly understood to have gradations, whether Maslow's hierarchy or something less sophisticated.

The context here is explaining or justifying conduct on the basis of an asserted need. Most people would say that the need for oxygen is a stronger justification than the need for education or sex or a nutritionist/cook, so simply labeling something as a need doesn't mean that all efforts to obtain it are automatically beyond reproach.

[redqueen]

250. You're comparing education and birth control to prostitutes.

Fuck. Ing. Hell.

[Jim Lane]

253. I give up. It's impossible to write a poutrage-proof post around here.

I wasted some typing time to specifically disclaim the idea that the word "need" answered all the questions about legalization of prostitution, but i get a response like this anyway.

Is there a comparison between education and prostitution? In the context of what I wrote -- and how often that word "context" is important -- my answer is Yes, there is a comparison. The comparison is that neither of them is a "need" under the narrow definition of that term that was urged in the post i was answering. A lack of oxygen will kill a person immediately and directly. A lack of education and a lack of sex are alike in that neither of them will have that kind of effect.

The existence of one similarity does not mean that the two things are similar in all respects.

In the interest of further clarification, I'll waste some more typing time spelling out what would be obvious to any fair-minded reader: I support socialized education, i.e., the state provides education at public expense. I do not support socialized prostitution, i.e., the state runs brothels at public expense. That's an example of how things that are similar in one respect can be different in other respects.

[Squinch]

349. Poor you.

[Jim Lane]

359. Actually, poor DU. This site is good but it could be better. (n/t)

[Kaleva]

238. And risk blindness??

[Warren DeMontague]

243. TWO WORDS: BIG FONTS

[Warren DeMontague]

242. Ah, Isn't that "problematic" also?

Maybe not if the precious sessions and concomitant naughty thoughts are submitted for pre-approval in advance.

[Logical]

325. You might WANT it but don't NEED it. nt

[ancianita]

82. The biology is simply ball drainage relief with some validation of one's sexual identity. That's it.

All this gender power politics might get in the mix, but I think that's just the bottom line personal reason a guy who's just a guy does it.

None of what I've said here is meant to be a put down of men, either.

[Laelth]

103. Men are what they are.

I don't consider your analysis a put-down in any way. I invite my female friends to do one of two things--embrace men for what they are or reject, condemn, and destroy them.

It seems to me that accepting men (or just people, generally) for what they actually are is the better strategy.

-Laelth

[PassingFair]

134. I'll bite....

What ARE men?

[hifiguy]

205. Kinda messy.

[betsuni]

234. Men are from Mars?

[MADem]

83. Probably has something to do with urges and sketchy social skills.

A lack of attractiveness (or perception thereof) or confidence might have something to do with it, too. Body odor, a dour disposition, acute shyness, a wish for a generally-disdained sexual practice, any number of variables could enter into the equation.

I suspect the reason for purchasing (renting, really) the services are as varied as the individuals putting cash on the barrelhead.

I also suspect most would not "prefer" to "pay for it." Or even "want" to pay for it.

They'd probably prefer that it be available to them at the wink of an eye, but life just doesn't work like that.

[Laelth]

95. k&r because this is an important issue and a provocative question. n/t

-Laelth

[Iggo]

101. Because trash thread.

[WinkyDink]

108. Because they can.

[LadyHawkAZ]

109. Oh look

Yet another article saying pretty much the exact same thing I've been saying for years. Imagine that.

[In_The_Wind]

118. Well, I never

doubted you for a moment.

[LadyHawkAZ]

125. .

[rock]

110. You've obviously never heard how loud a hooker can yell!

[Tikki]

111. Have money that isn't needed else where (or is and they don't care) and need something or want......

something different.


Tikki

[LittleBlue]

121. Supply and demand.

Basic economic theory dictates that wanting more sex than is freely available creates a market for sex, and the difference between what is needed and what's available determines the price.




This is true for anything in life that requires payment in exchange. Sex is just one of those things. Where there is demand, there will be a market, whether that is legal or illegal. And that's been true since prehistory.

[hifiguy]

166. Twas ever thus.

But to understand this fairly simple concept you have to look at the long run exposition of what human nature has shown itself to actually be over countless millennia and not what you wish it were.

[LittleBlue]

169. Exactly

Pretending to be something other than what we are doesn't make it so.

[hifiguy]

171. There are some on the left who are as dogmatically incapable

of accepting certain truths - primarily those about certain aspects of human nature - as the dingbats who run the museum with the saddle-wearing dinosaurs. Same mindset, different jumping-off point. After nearly 10,000 years of civilization the constants in human behavior have had more than sufficient time to show themselves.


Homo sapiens has never been, is not, and never will be a "perfectible" species. And for that everyone should heave a sigh of relief.

[Yavin4]

195. Off topic: How would primitive man even know how to make a saddle to put on a dinosaur? n/t

[hifiguy]

197. Jebus magicked them up.

Proof:

for more indisputable evidence see http://www.dailydawdle.com/2011/10/10-epic-portraits-of-jesus-and.html

[Yavin4]

206. If Jesus could "magick" up a saddle, why not "magick" a car instead?

"Magickup" a Lexus or a Mercedes. Sitting on a saddle is damn uncomfortable.

[hifiguy]

210. Risky, too. Especially on a carnivorous dino.

I guess he didn't want to show off and there were no gas stations anyway.

[Warren DeMontague]

270. Yeah. And it's perhaps worth asking what 'perfectible' even means.

I think a lot of people are running around with "state of grace--->original sin--->mankind is fallen", apocalyptic worldview scripts in their heads, without even realizing it.

And why shouldn't they? Western Civilization has been running on the Judeo-Christian monotheistic operating system (itself an update from earlier, albeit similar in many ways, pantheistic models) for thousands of years. That code is pretty deeply embedded, even if the names and labels of the good and bad guys have been changed.

[treestar]

324. We are HUMAN BEINGS

We should never have to sell ourselves. No one should ever be able to buy us. It's not a commodity it's a human relationship.

Supply and demand applies to products and commodities, not people. Women are people. This is the revolutionary proposition of feminism.

[jberryhill]

408. "It's not a commodity it's a human relationship."

What is talking to a psychologist at $150 an hour?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. They want to get off/nt

[fadedrose]

128. With so much going on

tragic stuff, here in US and the world, I think it's nice that there's a post that is light and might be fun to play around with....

However, I wish I could care why men pay for sex. Not in this lifetime the way things are going.

[Ino]

131. David Vitter paid to be diapered.

His prudish wife wouldn't indulge him.

[TransitJohn]

132. I'm gonna guess it's to get sex.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

156. ... lol ...

so simple it boggles the mind to watch the mental gymnastics to say otherwise

[hifiguy]

137. I suspect much of it reduces to a couple of core points:

Some men (be their orientation gay or straight) can't find partners for whatever reason but want to have actual sex rather than masturbate.

Some men want something their partner won't do with them. Hell, a lot of prim and proper Victorian and Edwardian types liked to be tied up and spanked with canes.

Humans are a strange and utterly non-perfectable species.

[CTyankee]

141. I'll bet it is for the forbidden thrill. It's a turn on for some men, I am sure, just to go

through with the whole experience.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

168. I tend to agree that the illegality of it all (and forbidden in the marital context) is some part

of the thrill and if it is ever legalized that reason will be gone.

Serving as an ends to a means, if you will.

Danger heightens the adrenaline/endorphin rush.

[Laffy Kat]

228. Brothels are legal in Nevada.

They must be holding their own (no pun intended--ok, pun intended).

[Tuesday Afternoon]

230. Can you prove sales were higher before they

They were made legal?

[Laffy Kat]

239. No, TA, I can't. nt

[BainsBane]

143. Why don't we see what the men themselves say?

This is how they talk about their experiences with sex workers:

http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/

"Some of the girls are lovely but most are just holes to fuck."

"She asked me lots of questions. For God's sake woman, I didn't bring you here for a quiz. I just want you to to naked and suck my cock."

Note continual references to tiny bodies.

http://invisible-men-canada.tumblr.com/

Note the concern for the poverty that these sex workers exist under: "In the past year I've noticed them looking more starved and not so attractive as before: almost not worth the energy."

"I feel like a king who can get whatever he wants. Money can buy almost anything."

"IT's like a piece of bloody meat in the bloody shark sea."

"I would pound her again but she's a fuck pig. You know, really nasty fuck, but keep her face down, she's not much to look at. . . now i'm off on another cunt hunt."

Note: vulgar and vile terms are in fact quotes from Johns. The OP asked why people buy sex, so I gave quotes. They are graphic and most certainly offensive, but to sanitize this issue to make it palatable for readers would be a willful distortion--a Big Lie.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

148. I like that you supply anecdotal evidence to debate the anecdotal evidence in the OP

there is a certain logic to it that is very ironically humorous to me.

[hifiguy]

165. That's the way certain arguments go around here.

Every time. Kinda funny and sad, actually.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

167. I also note that the OP specifically addresses the topic of why do MEN pay for sex

and others immediately point out that there are Male prostitutes ... well yeah and derp.

But, the fact remains that this OP is about MEN paying for sex and given that the OP is by a heterosexual male then bringing up Male prostitutes in the context of this thread is kinda ...

Pointless ...

but, maybe that is just me.

[BainsBane]

204. Male prostitutes largely serve men

Have you seen the reality show Gigolos? They argue that it is extremely difficult for a male prostitute to support himself servicing only women.

The fact is it is overwhelmingly men who buy sex. The numbers of women customers are not numerous enough to impact the overall nature of prostitution.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

217. All the more reason that it is not what

This thread is about. The op is not asking/talking/debating male prostitution or male/male sex.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

313. Yes it is a red herring and yet I notice the ones

Who post it.

[treestar]

309. They seem blindly to accept that sex is a men's thing

something for men to get. Women are only the providers. Blind to the fact they don't consider women equal.

[BainsBane]

201. Feel free to post some academic research on the subject

If you consider first-hand testimony so irrelevant.

[hifiguy]

212. i've tried that over my many years here.

And been told that the scientific method is invalid and ideologically incorrect when it yields the results people do not want to hear in much the same way reichwingers respond to scientific conclusions they do not like. Not gonna waste any more time with that. Life's too short.

[BainsBane]

235. You aren't the only one

Too many have no interest in evidence of any kind that doesn't fit their pre-existing views. I've been through hundreds of times myself.

[redqueen]

192. Glad you posted this. I posted a link directly to a similar site above.

I wonder how many people are aware of this side of the industry. The misogyny is not impossible to miss.

[BainsBane]

193. I didn't think they'd click on the link.

So I thought it best to post some excerpts.

[phylny]

211. Cracked me up reading some of these "reviews"

how annoyed they were that the workers weren't enthusiastic enough.

[BainsBane]

216. Some of them show the power of delusion

Talking about how hard the women came, that they bother going down on a sex worker and wonder why they are annoyed. They are on the clock, Dude. It's a job. At best it's a job they willingly choose. They aren't getting off on it.

[seaglass]

224. Yes, they didn't get the Girlfriend Experience - JC these people are delusional. n/t

[Yavin4]

150. It's okay to walk into a bar and convince an inebriated stranger to have sex with you.

But it's wrong to enter into a contract with a sober and willing partner to have sex with you. Why is one more ethical than the other?

[BainsBane]

153. No, actually that is rape

How is it possible you don't know that?

[Yavin4]

158. Okay, not inebriated. How about 2 drinks? Or 3 drinks?

She's not drunk. But you convince her to have sex with you. Is that more ethical than paying a sober and willing person to have sex with you?

[BainsBane]

181. If she isn't inebriated, what's the problem?

I don't see what is unethical about it.

[Yavin4]

184. But paying her would be unethical, right?

Please explain.

[BainsBane]

200. Prostitution in theory is not IMO unethical

and people here systematically address only theory and not reality, much like economists refuse to consider the human fallout of the capitalist economic theories in which they place unquestioning faith.

Reality is another story. Many Johns look for sex with underage teens and children. They are sexual predators who excuse their actions by arguing the girls and boys "choose" the "profession" (as one person literally argued for girls as young as nine). It is in fact rape, which is most certainly unethical. The fact many of those sex workers end up dead should also be a concern to anyone who cares about human life. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125548981

Then there is the fact that many Johns don't view the sex workers as human beings. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5429203

Is treating a girl or women as an "it," a "piece of bloody meat," or "just holes to fuck" unethical? Many assume the only issue is the man's right to buy, and the objects of that acquisition are inconsequential: minor, teen, "it" or "hole" matters not, since they are not the ones with money to consume. Neoliberal capitalism demands the commodification of all, including human beings, for the benefit of the few. Profit trumps human rights, particularly when those people are viewed as less than human.

Then the fallout on communities and their residents where prostitution proliferates is denounced as imaginary. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025346527 (You'll have to do a search of the OP referring to me as imaginary. I dare not link to it lest I be accused of engaging in callouts).

So while theoretical prostitution looks fine on paper, reality is another story.

[Yavin4]

207. You introduce extraneous facts in order to support your argument.

We're not talking about underage people or coercion or exploitation. There are women, and men, who freely offer escort services simply because they like having sex and don't have a problem with it.

[BainsBane]

214. Why aren't you talking about it?

It is the reality of what prostitution is, how it functions. The experiences of sex workers and those who grow up surrounded by prostitution are only extraneous if one considers those lives irrelevant. It's like talking about mining without considering the environmental consequences, ignoring the fact toxic run off causes cancer among workers and the community.

Refusing to consider what you call "extraneous" does not deal with the reality of the sex industry. That you consider those experiences "extraneous" only proves my point. It's all about a man's right to buy and own. Nothing else matters. No one else matters. The important point is to prop up privilege and power. That privilege and power results in exploitation, rape, human trafficking and death, but those lives are not important enough to even bother reading about let alone taking into account. That is the nature of the society we live in. It is the same ethos that allows the very few to control all resources and wealth. Capitalism always considers human rights and the common good irrelevant. Rights vest entirely in the hands of the few, and the majority, particularly women, children and the poor, are dismissed. Yes, it's quite obvious that human lives are extraneous under neoliberalism.

You asked about ethics. Dismissing human beings as "extraneous" is not ethical. It is in fact unconscionable.
My view of ethnics does not value a man's right to rape or even purchase consensual sex above human rights and human life. I do not personally believe that ethics allow a conception of rights as vested only in the hands of those who buy.

If this were about people's private sex lives, there would be no need to commodify it for profit. There would be no need to cajole others into sanctioning it. This is about commerce--capitalism and it's most naked. That is what people are insisting take precedence over extraneous human lives-- children raped, women treated as "its" and entire populations of teens killed because the privilege of men of means trumps human life. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125548981

You are the one who invoked ethics, only you have made clear you have no interest in exploring the reality of the sex trade let alone whether or not such treatment is ethical.

[LittleBlue]

295. She can't answer your question

without deflecting via word salad because the obvious answer is that there isn't much difference.

Children are being used as human shields in debate to avoid having to admit that the argument against consenting sex between adults is silly, whether payment is involved or not. Gay marriage, think of the children. Gay adoption, think of children. Drug war, think of the children. Prohibition, think of the children. Abortion, think of the fetu- er children. Prostitution....

This song and dance is concocted by morality crusaders to fool the fools of society.

[hifiguy]

315. And there is never any shortage of suckers

who buy in to these arguments. Sad.

[BainsBane]

401. The arguments happen to deal with the reality

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 11:31 AM - Edit history (2)

What you and your friends insist on is maintaining a view of the world where no one but men who buy count. I've made an effort to communicate with you in good faith. Clearly that was wasted effort. What I have talked about is not terribly complicated. It's simply a question of whether one sees an issue as entirely about himself and others with privilege or one thinks other human beings in society affected by prostitution matter. If any of you have any experience with the sex trade, you have to know that underage prostitution is common, indeed the norm. You've been pointed to information by people with experience living and working on the streets. those are real lives, real sex workers. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125548981 Only "suckers' fall for it. I think what you mean to say is only suckers care about someone besides themselves.

Defining prostitution as entirely about the male consumer promotes a view of the world that promotes privilege and consumption above human lives. It willfully and hostility seeks to banish from public discourse everyone else because in a neoliberal ethos, only money and those who possess it hold value. To ensure that narrow view of capitalism means excluded the majority of humanity affected by that commerce. To even consider their existence is for "suckers."

Neoliberalism requires ignoring the reality of the commerce they hold above human rights. Just as mining companies ignore environmental toxins that cause cancer and American manufacturers ignore the deaths than result from the harsh labor conditions in their factories abroad. They do so because they see those lives as meaningless. That is precisely what is happening here. You all are outraged that I dare mention anyone besides the men who consume. How dare I talk about actual sex workers and communities affected by prostitution? How dare I suggest anyone besides men of means have any significance? What is going on here is a classic justification of profit over social justice. Some of you think that because it's about sex means somehow typical concerns of social justice and community consequences shouldn't matter. Others are consistent in that they always promote the exploitation of the many for the benefit of the few, as long as they are on the side of the few.

Nothing I have said is factually inaccurate, and you provide no evidence to refute it. What you refer to as "suckers" are people who care about someone besides just themselves, who care about social justice. Some people care about profit and privilege and some human rights. David Koch and Mitt Romney consider those of us who care about social justice suckers as well. Capital and its defenders always do.

[hifiguy]

406. "Neoliberalism" is a term people who can think clearly

apply to corporatist economic policy combined with an aggressively imperialist foreign policy. It is not an all-encompassing ideology, it is simply what John Kenneth Galbraith described:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest EXERCISES in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

As I am an anti-imperialist democratic socialist with a strong civil libertarian streak I am by definition not a neoliberal; neither are the other civil libertarians on this board/thread.

[BainsBane]

398. I answered the question

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 12:04 PM - Edit history (3)

what you call word salad is a discussion of someone besides yourself, so obviously you consider their lives entirely irrelevant.
You insist on defining the issue of the sex trade so that the only people to consider are men of means. I point to posts by a member who saw an entire population of her sex workers, her friends, killed, through disease, murder, suicide, and serial killers, and you consider their lives irrelevant to the issue. She talks about their being raped by Johns from a young age, and you insist that is inconsequential because it doesn't promote the interests of the only thing that matters--men who buy sex. If you actually have any experience with prostitution, you know that underage sex workers are the norm. Pretending otherwise says you either have no idea what you are talking about or are deliberately seeking to deflect.

I challenge you to name one country or even one state where the sex trade is entirely of adults, where no children are prostituted. You won't be able to find it. Underage prostitution is central to the institution. It is a businesses that sells children to be raped by adult men.
On this very board we had a member argue that girls as young as nine willingly "choose" prostitution as a "profession." For him, that "choice" justified their violation.

You have made clear you don't read what I write, so don't comment on it. It's clearly goes over your head anyway. You haven't read Marx, so you think Marxist analysis is word salad. You repeat the most horrifyingly uninformed comments about female house slaves as privileged "concubines," and naturally you won't bother reading a response with sources from someone who has actually studied the subject at the doctoral level. You won't read what I have to say about the sex trade because I have actually first-hand experience with it and some knowledge of academic literature on the subject, both of which you are determined to ignore to maintain your one-dimensional view of the world. I long ago gave up any illusion that you were interested in intellectual exchange. It's like trying to get blood from a turnip. Since I don't engage you, you don't need to make snipe remarks about my posts that clearly you don't understand.

[BainsBane]

405. NOTE: Little Blue refused to agree to work for legalization in his own community

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 11:58 AM - Edit history (1)

(I am writing this in the third person even though it is in response to Little Blue because he has made clear repeatedly he refuses to read my posts. If he kept that promise, I would be very happy. Instead, he glances at them and then makes snide comments to others about my posts without actually engaging with anything I have written. For that reason it makes most sense to write this post in the third person).

When I pointed out the legalization of prostitution is a state and local issue and that he could work to legalize it in his own community, he refused. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025346527#post69 http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025346527#post71
He doesn't want it in his community. Instead, he insisted it should be made legal on a "national level." (One wonders what theory of interstate commerce would apply to a federal law requiring that prostitution be legal and how that wouldn't violate the 10th Amendment? He had no response to a previous query about what legal basis he imagined could possibly achieve such an end. Could it be possible he imagines a constitutional amendment legalizing prostitution? Or would repeal of the 13th Amendment suffice?) Instead, the emphasis is of course on how to reintroduce it into poor neighborhoods for men of means to come exploit a trade they want no where near their own communities.

Instead we have constant outrage that I dare mention the lives of sex workers, millions of whom are underage, or the communities affected by prostitution, from the economic blight that accompanies the sex trade to the predatory activity by Johns on children living in those areas. How dare I mention real human beings? Don't I know the only people that matter in this scenario are men who engage in capitalist consumption? So all this outrage that I mention the existence of human beings he insists are inconsequential have absolutely no impact on whether or not prostitution is made legal in his or any other community other than my own. He and others could go to their City Council or County Board of Commissioners any time and propose that the sex trade be legalized. Yet they do not. Instead, Little Blue is more focused on my audacity in mentioning the lives of women, girls, boys, and teens caught up in the sex trade. Why I wonder? Why is it so much more important to denounce the lives of human beings like these? http://www.democraticunderground.com/125548981
If the goal is to legalize prostitution, why worry about what I write at all?

[BainsBane]

199. Wrong place. Deleted.

[robbob]

281. So every time 2 people hook up in a bar

At closing time, if the woman is drunk (keep in mind there are many levels of inebriation that all qualify as 'drunk'), then that is rape?

[NickB79]

155. 99% of the time: they're horny. nt

[johnlucas]

160. If you don't pay in money, you pay in time. Either way there is exchange going on

Every interaction between people is an exchange of some kind.
Whether monetary or not.

You hang with people because you get something you value from them.
Even if it's just companionship, even if it's just belonging, even if it's just adventure.

This applies to friendships, family relations, co-workers, even strangers on the street.
You scratch my back, I scratch yours. The old monkey maxim.

If you went to a friend's house & she was stingy with giving a soft drink while you kept her company, you would feel like this is not a friend & not someone you would want to be around.
Friendship means sharing your stuff & reciprocating.
It might not be measured out exactly but there is an exchange going on the whole time.
I listen to your latest blowup with your boyfriend or husband, you let me eat that juicy orange in your fruit basket.

Making exchanges for sex is not even a big deal.
It's just one more of the many items humans make deals with amongst each other.

Mama ain't gonna want son around if he ain't helping to contribute to the household in some way.
He gotta at least clean his room or take out the trash or get good grades on his report card which should ensure that he has the education to move out on his own when he becomes an adult.
At the very least affection & appreciation. Something. It's always something.

Sex trafficking? I'm right with you on that one.
It's disgusting & needs to be eradicated.
No one should be forced into prostitution against their will.
That's a violation of human rights.

But if a woman DECIDES on her own will to become one, that is her choice & no one should have anything to say about it.

We're ALL prostitutes of some sort selling our bodies for trinkets.
Your arms, legs, & back lifting that heavy stuff in that warehouse & needing Icy Hot to get through the day.
Your brain, wrists, & fingers typing on that computer in that cubicle & getting carpal tunnel.

Like the rapper Ice-T once said There are only Pimps & Hoes. If you ain't a Pimp, you're a Ho.
You can call this Boss & Worker. Employer & Employee. King & Subject. Master & Slave.
Same difference.
If you ain't in control, you're the Worker, you're the Employee, you're the Subject, you're the Slave, you're the Ho.

When people make a big deal about prostitution, they're only quibbling on the body part that prostitute sells.
Not realizing the whole time that the quibblers prostitute themselves just the same only with different body parts.

Selling your hide for some money.
Isn't that what we ALL do?
Salary, Wage, Commission, Whatever.

Always an exchange going on in every single thing we do.
John Lucas

[dawg]

162. How about paying for sex ...

*with* sex. Fair exchange, no?

[Yavin4]

185. That depends on the sex that you get in exchange. n/t

[johnlucas]

268. They call those "romantic relationships" & more than sex is being exchanged

Sex is not some holy sanctified untouchable entity.
It's fantastic yes but people lionize the damn thing & forget the whole purpose.

What two adults do between each other so long as no party is being harmed is their business.
I don't care if they trade baseball cards for sex.
You cannot control this & you SHOULD not control this.

I will join the fight against sex trafficking all day long.
That's a different issue. That's coercion. That's being forced into doing something against your will.
But every SEXUAL prostitute (as opposed to the general labor prostitutes we all are) is not a victim.
Some CHOSE that life & are in control of their role within it.
Those kinds are actually entrepreneurs.

Talk to this one if you don't believe me.
A woman named Maggie McNeil who tells of her experiences in a blog called The Honest Courtesan.

Whatever two adults decide to exchange with is their business & their business alone.
If it's money, if it's lemon meringue pie, if it's videogames, if it's shoes, if it's concert tickets, if it's a new car, it doesn't matter.

Whenever you get the urge to look down on prostitution & what prostitutes do for a living, just remember that you're a prostitute of a different kind selling your body for pieces of paper & metal.
What difference does it make if you're selling your vagina, your back, your arms & legs, your brain, your wrists & ankles, your neck & spine, your ribs, your face?
A prostitute is still a prostitute.
You're just quibbling over the part that's sold.

Maybe it's jealousy. The general labor whores are jealous that they're not getting the same financial reward as the sexual labor whores.
John Lucas

[redqueen]

273. Everyone KNOWS there are privileged women who WANT to rent out their bodies.

If you bothered to spend ten minutes reading about the fact that where we make those privileged women's lives easier, MANY MORE women AND children will be forced suffer because of the demand created by the men who want to rent people for sex, but they don't want to follow any rules, or they want underage people to use.

This really isn't that complicated.

But apparently neoliberal bullshit sells REALLY fucking well.

[johnlucas]

290. Her name is Maggie McNeil & her blog is the Honest Courtesan

The Honest Courtesan

Talk to her about it.
And watch her tell you that she is no victim.

The men who want to have sex with children are pedophiles.
And nobody tolerates pedophiles.
I want an end to sex trafficking so we won't have any more of that garbage where men victimize girls & women forced into prostitution against their will.
That shit that goes on in Southeast Asia for instance with men putting up girls as young as 5 years old for sex.
That's DISGUSTING!

But this is not about sex trafficking.
This is about prostitution.
And when a woman makes a decision on her OWN merit to join that lifestyle, no one should have an argument.
She is not forced & she is making her OWN decisions. She is an adult with a clear mind.
Isn't that what feminism is all about? Giving women choices?
Some women choose to be CEOs, some women choose to be housewives, some women choose to be athletes, & YES some women choose to be sex workers (strippers, prostitutes, models).

You will NEVER stop prostitution because you can NEVER control what two consenting adults choose to do with each other sexually.
What exchanges & deals they make in those interactions.

Sex trafficking is the problem not prostitution.
Regulate prostitution like any other business & you'll protect those women & children corralled into the trade against their will.
Men will HAVE to follow the rules because it will be regulated.
And those who won't will deal with jail time & prison time.

Every prostitute is not a victim sorry to tell you, redqueen.
And they'll be the FIRST to tell you that.

Focus your energies on cleaning up the trade by eliminating violent pimps & sex traffickers because you're going nowhere if you want to end prostitution outright.
John Lucas

[R B Garr]

362. "Maybe it's jealousy. The general labor whores are jealous that they're not getting the same

financial reward as the sexual labor whores."

Holy crap. Who could ever take these type of posts seriously. What a joke.

[johnlucas]

372. Oh you're mad because I called you a Labor Ho? Because that's exactly what you are

You sell your hide for those wages, those salaries, those commissions...
...and you look DOWN on prostitutes???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

You ARE a prostitute just the same.
You're just selling a different body part.

Too real for ya?
Yeah I know. Human beings hate truth. They love their perceptions.

Yeah, I think I stumbled upon what causes some of the ire SEXUAL prostitutes get.
Jealousy!
They get paid to have sex & some make a damned good living off of it.
Meanwhile these other whores of the factories & cubicles look at their paycheck and are miserable that they can hardly make ends meet.
Yet they don't have the nerve to do sex work themselves so they just throw sour grapes all the damn time.
It's just a theory but I think it's a sound one.

Yep. You are JUST as much a whore as they are.
They just perform sex work while you perform more general labors.
You sell your hide for the money, baby! Don't lie to me. I know you do. Hahahahahaha!
John Lucas

[R B Garr]

373. $5 dolla make you holla

Yes, absolutely. If only I could have the golden opportunity offered to the chosen few sexual prostitutes to give $5 blowjobs to someone's creepy husband. It would change my life. U betcha.

[johnlucas]

380. Continuing to look down on the Prostitutes. And they wonder why things don't change.

It's the sex.
That's what scares 'em.
Sex is "dirty" in America & we can't be put on the same level as a lowly filthy prostitute.
We are of "better breeding" than to be compared with such dregs of society.

That's the stigma I'm talking about.
The same stigma that won't let things change.
Which keeps the criminal underbelly embedded into a profession that is at the forefront of a health-focused society.

Sexual relations are a subset of Social relations.
When the hippies said Make Love Not War, I took them seriously.
That IS the answer.
Because the last thing people are wanting to do after having a good orgasm is fight somebody.

These sex workers actually provide an invaluable service for the world.
They're probably better off being called Sex Nurses or Sex Doctors.
After all sexual health has benefits towards overall health.

I'd like to live in a society where blowjobs take precedent over blow-bombs.
A society weighted toward "Freaking" is a society weighted against Fighting.

It was hard enough getting people to say "I am Trayvon Martin" & "I am Michael Brown".
I know good & well we ain't gon' get anyone to say "I am a prostitute".
You ain't gonna get that kind of solidarity in the land where sex is "dirty".
These fine upstanding people won't put that Scarlet Letter on themselves.
And therefore things will stay the same.
John Lucas

[R B Garr]

382. Now you're contradicting yourself because before you said prostitutes were so highly paid

Nothing you say makes sense, but I see you like it that way.

[johnlucas]

388. No contradiction whatsoever. I'm addressing that stigma on prostitution that prevents the reforms

It doesn't make sense to you because you inherently think prostitution is wrong.
I don't see it that way.
I see it like any other business.

What IS wrong is sex slavery, sex trafficking, & the Law of the Jungle violence that's in the business because the trade is stigmatized & criminalized.
But yeah even with that corruption some prostitutes make much better money than the drones out here in the offices & factories.
With the corruption removed those who practice the trade can make even more.

A Prostitute's Union???
Interesting concept.

All I know is that I'm tired of the demonization of prostitutes & the infantilization of prostitutes as well.
I'm tired of the "we must save them from themselves" nonsense & the "we must abolish all prostitution" insanity.
There's nothing immoral about sex & if we got women out here concerned about "slut shaming" then why do these same women go around "prostitute shaming"?

Legalize it, regulate it, enforce it. Simple.
Maybe then these people will get the respect they deserve in society.
What was once called a brothel might one day be seen as a sex hospital.

I mean we already got the White Hands service in Japan giving sexual relief to handicapped patients.
I notice the tone in THAT Democratic Underground thread on the White Hands thing is much more positive & much less judgmental than the tone on other prostitution threads in this forum.

I made these series of posts in this thread to present a new point of view nobody else bothered to consider.
I changed the tone of the debate.
I took the conversation from A-B-C to J-Q-Z.
That's what forums are for. A marketplace of ideas.
John Lucas

[LostInAnomie]

175. Yep.

It's a silly place to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate exchange.

[johnlucas]

269. Thank you. It's irrational moralistic fear fueling this debate

It's an non-issue as far as I'm concerned.
The only thing we should be talking about on that issue is sex trafficking.
THAT is a human rights violation.
And affects young girls & women (sometimes men & boys) in the worst way.
I want to see that crap eliminated in my lifetime.

Regulating the trade will do a lot towards that end.
By keeping it in the shadows, the underbelly seeps in.
Regulate prostitution like you do any other business & that gets rid of the criminal pimps who traffic their own sex slaves.

But for the actual trade of prostitution?
That's a non-issue.
What two consenting adults do with each other is none of our business—so long as no harm is being done to either.
You wanna stick your noses in the middle of that?
Then let someone stick their noses into your sex life with your partner & let them tell you what sex acts you should & should not engage in.
No more whips & handcuffs for you. This dildo is illegal.
Whipped cream should not go there. This negligee is against the rules.
Turn off the lights for decency. No grunting noises allowed.
The coitus is on a 5 minute timer. No overtime.

See how ridiculous that sounds?
That's how prostitution hand-wringers sound on the prostitution issue.
John Lucas

[Squinch]

305. You need to educate yourself.

Legalization leads to more trafficking. I'm not going to post the study yet again which looked at 116 countries who legalized prostitution, and found increase in trafficking in all of them resulting from legalization. It found the increase in trafficking to be the greatest in democracies and in wealthy nations. The absolute greatest increase in trafficking was in wealthy democracies.

If you do not like trafficking, and yet you are advocating legalization in the wealthy democratic USA, you are the one who is being irrational.

[johnlucas]

332. This happens because there's not an INTERNATIONAL effort on the issue

If you plug the leak on one side but fail to plug it on the other side, you still have a leak & your container won't hold the water.
What you do is TRACK DOWN the traffickers. Stop it at the source.
You do this with licenses & severe penalties for anybody who tries to operate without one or who violates the license they obtain by trafficking.
Every establishment should have an exhaustive database of employers & employees—documented & licensed.

Legalization does not HAVE to lead to more trafficking.
And by keeping it ILLEGAL the ones who are being trafficked now live in the shadows TOTALLY unprotected because they are shamed by society at large on one side & abused by the traffickers on the other side.

These societies which have increased trafficking are not doing the proper follow through.
They just legalized it & let it go.
They're not fully regulating it & are not enforcing their regulations.

It's very easy to stop.
Stop it at the top. Hit those in charge of the employ with no consequences to the ones employed.
Encourage hotlines where victimized women can speak out & expose a trafficker.
That's what cleans up the business.

And what REALLY will clean it up is no diplomatic immunity from traffickers who flee back to their unregulated homelands.
You do this dirt in this country, we pick you up in YOUR country with your country's blessing.

Honestly I think these countries don't do the due diligence because they are ashamed of the trade altogether.
Regulate & ENFORCE. That ends the exploitation.

It's exactly how the food industry was regulated over 100 years ago.
John Lucas

[Squinch]

346. And while we wait for the whole world to come together on this, something that has never happened

in human history on any issue, much less one that the world finds so unimportant as human trafficking, you are just fine with changing the law here in the US and increasing the number of people who are trafficked. So we are back to the FACT that legalizing in the US will increase trafficking, and you are arguing for that increase.

ALSO, 116 countries in that study have been grappling with the terrible ramifications of their legalization of prostitution and have not been able to stop the increases in trafficking that they have unleashed, and yet you are sitting at your keyboard with all the answers that all the people in all those countries couldn't come up with!

Get it? Your "It's easy! All you have to do is..." argument is ridiculous.

[johnlucas]

350. I did research. No country is putting out the resources necessary to stop it

And the reason why that is I believe is because these countries benefit from it.
The U.S. has spent the most money of all the countries to combat human trafficking but that number is only $100 million.
That's baby food. They're not serious about it. Nobody's serious about it.
They benefit from this slavery, that's why.

I read the blog of a real-life former prostitute The Honest Courtesan & she says the anti-prostitution proponents are actually HURTING people with their anti stance.
Read that blog. You'll find a point of view you haven't heard ANYWHERE.
They are DEFINITELY the words of somebody who lived the life & can speak from experience on what the issues are.

I didn't know ANYTHING about the life of prostitute so I shut my mouth & just listened to these articles she wrote.
It's not hard to tell that these are honest articles telling the TRUE story of this trade lived from experience.
She had an article talking about prostitutes in India actually PROTESTING the anti-prostitution calvacade!
Sex Worker Rights Day

The key is looking at sex workers just like any other worker.
Workplace protections & enforcement of those protections.
Yes, Squinch, prostitutes are just as much a part of Worker's Rights as coal miners & truckers are.
It's a classic labor issue like every other.
Keeping it illegal keeps it in the shadows where more people get abused.

Stopping trafficking is not very hard.
The numbers given seem to be low in my opinion but it's said that 20 to 30 million people are trafficked worldwide.
How hard is it REALLY to stop the trafficking of 20 to 30 million people in a world of 7 billion+?
No nation is serious about stopping it, that's why it persists.

Just like anything you shine the spotlight on it & the cockroaches disappear.
Yavin4 brings up the point that human trafficking goes MUCH further than in sex work but nobody seems to care about these issues because there's no sexual component to the story.
The farms, hotels, nail salons, restaurants trafficking men, women, AND children for exploitative labor.
Shine the spotlight on it, enforce the protections, & it cleans up.
It IS that simple.

Every prostitute is not a victim waiting to be saved.
What they need is recognizance of their trade as a legitimate workers' rights issue so that the criminal element can be excised out of the business.

Don't take my word for it. Talk to this actual prostitute who actually lived the life.
Start with these posts right here.

Sex Work Is Work
More Harm Than Good
International Sex Worker Rights Day
First They Came for the Hookers...

Hell read 'em all!
Index

Choice quotes posted in her articles:
For all the talk about women involved in the sex industry as “victims”, there is no apparent appetite for actually speaking with them in order to assess what the real issues are. – Graham Ellison
LINK

Sex work can be dangerous; but those dangers are exacerbated, or in many cases even created, by criminalisation. – Jean Urquhart
LINK

Sex worker rights are human rights, and there can never be too many voices speaking up for them, nor too many occasions on which to speak.
– Maggie McNeill
LINK

By the way a woman from the UK named Jean Urqhart, a member of the Scottish Parliament, pushed for the decriminalization of sex work to improve safety & reduce stigma.
See what you find out when you stop running on a preset narrative?

The Temperance Movement meant well too & it led to Al Capones & crime syndicates running wild all over the country.
13 years (1920-1933) & they had to cancel that 18th Amendment with the 21st.
Enforce protections for the women in the trade like you do workers in any other field.
That's what solves the problem.
Prohibition movements just don't work.
John Lucas

[Squinch]

351. "Stopping traffickng is not very hard." You have to understand that is an assinine statement.

And your position, based on a blog, still does not address the issue that all of these countries have seen an increase in trafficking. So that, by advocating for legalization, YOU are advocating for an increase in trafficking.

[johnlucas]

353. Based on an actual worker in the field, yeah

I just told you why it increases.
They're not following through.
It is NOT hard.

That 20 to 30 million number I got from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) & the Global Slavery Index.
You REALLY think it's hard to shut down operations affecting 0.03% to 0.04% of the world's population?
I believe that number is MUCH higher than that but it's not unstoppable in the LEAST.

You act like there are billions & billions of people being trafficked but that just ain't true.
The number while objectively big is actually very small on a global scale.
You stop the trafficking by cutting off the sources. VERY easy.
But if the countries benefit from this slave trade (and as we see from history they do), they AIN'T gonna try to truly stop it.

You dismiss that woman because you dismiss who she is & what she does for a living.
THAT'S why this issue doesn't get solved.
Too much stigma around prostitution because so many people think it's a filthy trade by default.
When it's just sex—the whole reason we exist on the planet to begin with.
Because of the stigma we either have to demonize the people participating in it or treat them as lost children who need to be saved.
There ain't a lick of middle ground & balance on the issue.

People looking at the trade of prostitution are too ashamed & it affects clear thinking on the issue.
"Based on a blog" you say dismissively. No, based on someone who actually lived the fucking life.
It's like someone talking about the tragedies in Ferguson & refusing to talk to the actual people who live in Ferguson.
A bunch of know-it-alls in ivory towers too high-falutin' to actually talk to the people on the grounds.
Sort of like how women get irritated at men telling them what their issues are & not even bothering to actually talk to the women themselves.

That Maggie McNeill lady isn't the only one telling you what I'm relaying to you.
But I thought by showing her blog, it would be the gateway to learning about the issue.
She links to other resources from other people.

Sex workers have a problem with government know-nothings, misguided saviors of both the female & male varieties, & the general societal stigma condemning what they do.

You don't just LEGALIZE it, you LEGALIZE it & ENFORCE THE PROTECTIONS.
It's not hard at all but because of the stigma of prostitution, hardly nobody really gives a damn about actually solving the problems in the trade.
They would rather moralize & grandstand.

It ain't hard at all to stop the trafficking of three-hundredths to four-hundredths of the world's population.
The question is are the governments REALLY committed to stopping this slavery?
Judging by the finances they put towards the problem, hell no.

John Lucas

[Squinch]

354. Based on a blog. So here's the thing. Yes. We get that you read a blog and you think everyone

is just being silly about not getting that trafficking thing under control. So go ahead, and get that trafficking under control.

It is, according to you, easy peasy, so why don't you get on that. Once you do, the vast majority of resistance to legalization will probably go away, so get on it. I expect that you'll have that taken care of by, what, this afternoon?

Your position is silly. You are saying, "Getting rid of trafficking is easy." Then you should have no trouble with a position that says, "Go ahead and do that and then the rest of us will shut up."

But until that trafficking is under control, I will just keep pointing out the fact that if you are advocating for legalization, you are advocating for an increase in trafficking." Period. We can talk in hypotheticals all you want, but as things stand now, if you advocate for legalization you advocate for an increase in trafficking.

[johnlucas]

358. Dismissiveness is the sign of defeat. You don't wanna learn from the actual people themselves.

You're flat wrong & you don't care that you're flat wrong.
You have a preset narrative that you can't deviate from.
I offer you someone with EXPERIENCE in the trade who TELLS you what the problems are & you refuse to consider them.

OK. So be it.
Beat your drum about the increases in human trafficking with the evils of legalization.
Dismiss the actual prostitutes who can TELL you how to TRULY solve that problem.
Find yourself stuck in your ivory tower never realizing how life on the ground really is.

20 to 30 million is baby food.
It can be stopped tomorrow if the countries were really committed to it.
Stop it at the source & those millions dry up.

What I'm gonna do is read more from actual prostitutes, actual sex workers & listen to what they have to say.
That blog has been an absolute education for me & I'm humble enough to know my role & shut my mouth—as The Rock says—while the people in the actual business teach me what's really going on.
The actual prostitute in the business tells me that decriminalization—NOT prohibition—is the key.
I'm gonna have to yield to her expertise & credentials on the matter.

You always listen to those with the hands-on practical experience in ANY matter.
Theory only takes you so far.
John Lucas

P.S.: Here are some other prostitutes to tell you how full of it you guys are.
"and deliver us from our saviors"
We Are Here To Win
Lies, Damned Lies and Stigmatizing Sex Workers

P.P.S.: One more.
Opposing sex workers' rights is anti-feminist

P.P.P.S.: Oops. One last one.
Why I call them "anti-sex worker" rather than "anti-porn" or "anti-prostitution," and why you should too

[Squinch]

363. No dismissiveness is caused by the fact that your position: "getting rid of trafficking is easy" is

ridiculous.

And again, wherever it has been instituted, legalization increases trafficking. That is simply a fact. So if you are advocating for legalization, you are advocating for trafficking.

So read up on your blogs. They won't change the FACT that in every country that legalized, trafficking increased. And whether you think the problem is an easy one to fix or not, the FACT is that the problem is not being fixed. So whatever your blogs say, they won't change the fact that IF YOU ADVOCATE FOR LEGALIZATION, YOU ARE ADVOCATING FOR TRAFFICKING.

[johnlucas]

368. Another ivory tower snob. No surprise here.

It makes what the Phillipines prostitutes say all the more clear.
They spell it out in We Are Here To Win.

But to Squinch, this is just a mere "blog".
Not the actual accounts of the people themselves.

They're tired of you "saviors", Squinch.
You're not helping them.
You're acting like missionaries sent to convert the heathens.
They want you to take your moralizing & grandstanding back to your ivory towers while the real reform is being done.

I, on the other hand, am opening my ears & opening my mind.
I will let them teach me.
I am their student.
It's time for me (like The Rock says) to know my role, shut my mouth, & learn their lesson.
John Lucas

Excerpts from We Are Here To Win.

Being poor in the Philippines, most sex workers come from poor families, means all your life you are going to be acculturated into the culture of silence until it becomes a way of life. You learn to keep your own views of the world around you to yourself. No matter how much you believe things to be wrong you must believe it to be right when the rich, your master (amo), to whom you depend on for your livelihood say so. The poor lose their voices in the process. The master who has control of their lives speak for them. The acculturation goes on until they come to believe their voices do not matter and that only the voices of the powerful would count.

Most of us, sex workers, have gone through this process of acculturation in our lives. We have learned to accept that speaking up and being listened to is a privilege that the poor and the powerless are not entitled to. It does not help that we are forced to hide who we are since the society in which we live has ostracized us. That should make it easy for anyone to understand why it was not difficult for the feminist (abolitionists) to appropriate our voices and to start speaking for us. Society has made us invisible so to have women of power speak for us was a blessing or so we thought. It was not a blessing. It was exploitation. They were not speaking for us, they were speaking for themselves in our name. They have assumed the role of the “amos” and again we whimpered in silence as they robbed us of our voices. Most Filipinos, the poor and the powerless, when faced by a desperate situation there is nothing they could do about would most often take the fatalistic way out. They would say “leave it to fate” (bahala na). And “bahala na”, it was for us.

For years, we could only stand , mouths gagged, as we watched our new “amos” build their careers speaking for other underprivileged and “mindless” women in their list who they claim do not have the ability to speak for themselves. We are on top of that list. We could hardly figure them out. Maybe because we have not seen the corridors of the university like they all did that they baffle us. They speak so fiercely about fighting for women’s right to self-determination but clearly that does not include us. Perhaps by women, they only meant themselves. We also do not understand the arrogance by which they have anointed themselves our saviors like it was their manifest destiny even when clearly we do not want them saving us because there is no reason to. What we want is save ourselves from them instead.

They do not only confuse us. They intimidate us. They speak in jargons we do not understand. We guess it was their way of telling us they know better and so we should just leave it to them to run our lives. But we really do not care about “patriarchy”, “commodification” and other words they spew. Those matters don’t bring food on our table nor pay for our rent. All we are interested in is work undisturbed.

We grew up with succession of “amos” taking command of our lives which in reality were never truly our own. It is time we claim our lives back. It is time we find our voices because only in finding our voices back can we say our lives are our own. It would not be easy but it is possible. It can take years to get ourselves back to what we really should be but we are undaunted.

We must serve notice to our self-appointed saviours/masters that their time is up. They can’t take our jobs away from us in the same way we can’t take them away from their careers even if they have built them under our expense. Under the bus is no place for any human. And yes, whatever the society or anyone thinks of us, we are human beings deserving of every right accorded everybody else. Those rights are not for anyone to dispense. It is for us to claim and we are going to claim them.

[johnlucas]

370. Very easy to stop. Do you remember 1865?

They stopped that old Trans-Atlantic slave trade just like that.
It took a big ol' war to shut down the opponents but they shut it down & permanently.

All that's needed is the will & these countries honestly don't have the will.
They shut down one slave trade triangle & let other slave trade triangles take their place.
They benefit from it. That's why it won't stop.

Keep up with the ivory tower grandstanding.
I'm listening to the prostitutes.
John Lucas

[Squinch]

375. Wow. That's a really crazy analogy that has nothing to do with the situation under discussion.

From the nuttiness of your posts, I am beginning to think you are just here to mess with the site. Either that or you really don't have a clue. So I will bid you a good day.

[johnlucas]

381. Has nothing to do with it? Slavery is Slavery.

These guys are something else man.
Now Squinch is telling me that this older form of human trafficking has nothing to do with this newer form of human trafficking.

Twilight Zone exists in Democratic Underground, don't it.

And Squinch STILL won't listen to the actual prostitutes themselves.
To committed to the missionaries' mission.

Carry on Squinch.
Be their "savior".
John Lucas

[LanternWaste]

177. Friendship and companionship are not quid pro quo

Friendship and companionship are not quid pro quo (regardless of what sociological expertise you allege a rapper may or may not have) .

For actual education, see: Anthropology by Conrad Kottak; and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, by Jared Diamond (though I am the first to admit, they are both short on both bling and poor rhyming meter)

[johnlucas]

267. Actually they are

It might not be spelled out specifically & it might be done more informally but friendship & companionship are JUST as tit for tat as any other exchange between people.

Why do you think married couples or boyfriend/girlfriend couples start to get resentment when they feel the other partner is not contributing equally to the relationship?
A wife taking care of the kids after coming home from a long day at work & not even getting the smallest token of verbal appreciation from the husband.
More importantly physical help from that husband.
A boyfriend who goes all out for his girlfriend on her birthday, Valentine's Day, & Christmas & she won't even consider getting him fuzzy dice on the rear view mirror of his car.

The deed may be small objectively but the SUBJECTIVE value is what counts.
And that value has to match up with the value you're putting into the other one of the relationship.
If there is any deficit, it will only be forgiven for so long. You have to go that extra mile if you only went an inch before.
There is a grace period in making up any deficits but they have to be made up or resentment sets in.

ALL human relationships are quid pro quo.
ALL human relationships are tit for tat.
Even the one between you & your parents.
Grace periods may vary but there is always exchange going on.
It's all about reciprocation.

Ice-T has street knowledge & when I heard him make that quote years ago, I couldn't help but be stunned at how real it was.
You may look down on him because he's merely a "rapper" but I know that knowledge is owned by no one entity & it can come from literally ANYWHERE.

I learned "Work smarter not harder" from Scrooge McDuck of the 1987 cartoon Ducktales.
I learned about being yourself & appreciating differences from an episode of the 1984 cartoon Muppet Babies.
I learned the inherent fractious nature of human beings from an episode of the 1989 cartoon Garfield & Friends.

You can learn from a bum on the street just as much as a professor with his/her credentialed degrees.
Don't become a snob. Knowledge is EVERYWHERE.
John Lucas

[redqueen]

272. So in the parent/child relationship - the parents are the pimps, and the kids are the hos?

I can't believe this offensive crap isn't being challenged by more people.

[johnlucas]

287. Parents are the Boss, yes.

So you don't like the specific terminology of Pimp vs. Ho.
But you don't blink when someone says Employer vs. Employee, Boss vs. Worker, Parent vs. Child, Master vs. Servant, King vs. Subject.
It's all the same thing.

The One In Control vs. The One Being Controlled.
THAT'S what that means.
These are terms for the power dynamics within relationships.

When Mom & Dad say "Clean that room!" what do the children do?
They CLEAN THAT ROOM, don't they?
If the children don't, then the parents punish the children with consequences.

If your kids talk back to you, redqueen, what do you do?
You show 'em who's boss, don't you?
You take away a toy, you put them in time out, you give them a spanking, you ground them.
If you don't, then your kids run over you in the house.
THEY become the boss & that's how you get bratty kids.

At work, you do what the boss tells you or you get fired from that workplace.
In a country with a king or queen, you bow your head to that royal or there will be consequences.
Go to the United Kingdom & disrespect Queen Elizabeth II to her face & see what happens.

You don't have to use the specific terminology of Pimp vs. Ho.
But the power dynamic of the relationship is the same.
The One In Control vs. the One Being Controlled.

And yes, Parents are in control, are in charge of their Children.
John Lucas

[redqueen]

289. Pimps *physically beat and abuse women*. They *intentionally get them addicted to drugs*.

Once again, disgusting.

[johnlucas]

294. Actually not true. What do you think Maya Angelou did when she was young?

When they're male, they call 'em Pimps.
When they're female, they call 'em Madams.

Maya Angelou was a Madam. *GASP*
So does that mean she physically beat & abused the prostitutes in her employ?
She intentionally got them addicted to drugs?
Here's an excerpt from an article by John McWhorter of The New Republic:

And Angelou's life has certainly been a full one: from the hardscrabble Depression era South to pimp, prostitute, supper club chanteuse, performer in Porgy and Bess, coordinator for Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, journalist in Egypt and Ghana in the heady days of decolonization, comrade of Malcolm X, and eyewitness to the Watts riots. She knew King and Malcolm, Billie Holiday, and Abbey Lincoln.
Reviewer John McWhorter, The New Republic (McWhorter, p. 36)

He outright called Maya Angelou a pimp!
And she was a prostitute too!
And she wasn't ashamed of it either!!

Here's a video article that says it outright.
Ignoring Maya Angelou's Past As A Sex Worker Simplifies Her Legacy

Listen to Aya De Leon from the University of California–Berkeley spell it out for you in that piece.

There ARE Pimps who abuse the Prostitutes under them just like there are Employers who abuse the Employees under them just like there are Kings who abuse the Subjects under them just like there are Parents who abuse the Children under them.

Pimp does not necessarily equal an abuser who gets prostitutes hooked on drugs.
It simply means one who is in charge of the prostitutes.

Madam Heidi Fleiss is just as much as pimp as any man.
Do you think she beats her prostitutes? Do you think she intentionally gets them hooked on drugs?

Here's the funny part.
There are prostitutes out here who are their OWN pimps!
They control the whole business outright themselves!
In other walks of life they would call these people Entrepreneurs.
When the Worker is his/her OWN Boss.

It's a trade just like any other.
And it's a trade that is lacking in legal protections which is why the criminal element inserts itself so readily.
You get it regulated, you get rid of that criminal element.
Some businesses sell copper, some sell music, some sell food, & some sell sex.
When Upton Sinclair wrote that book The Jungle it helped clean up the food business & make it safer for the workers in that business as well as the buyers.

Why is it that people can't wrap their minds around cleaning up the sex business just the same?
Why is the sex part so special & unique? What makes people lose their minds if anything sexual is involved?
Americans need to let go of that Puritan insanity.

You want to end the pimps who physically beat & abuse the women?
You want to end the pimps who intentionally get them addicted to drugs?
Then REGULATE the Prostitution Business & quit acting like a child just because this business involves sex.
John Lucas

[redqueen]

296. No it does not mean "one who is in charge of the prostitutes".

Maybe you ought to talk to some, sometime.

It isn't just another business. What makes it special and unique is that when abuses happen in this industry, it doesn't just result in products making people ill, or people working long hours. It results in kidnapping, physical violence, PTSD, and death.

But don't worry yourself about it. You just go on prioritizing the privileged few and ignoring the rest as collateral damage. As you said, you have already decided that nothing will ever stop that from happening, so you don't have to worry your beautiful mind about it.

As for your silly quip about people "losing their minds" - just more nonsense. It's telling that so many defenders of this multi-billion dollar industry resort to such hyperbole.

People are waking up to the reality, and desperate times (and immense profit) call for desperate measures.

[johnlucas]

297. I am ALL for cleaning up the criminal element in prostitution

I said this many times in these posts.
I'm done with the human rights violations done by violent pimps who beat their women, sex traffickers who force girls & women into sex slavery.
THAT is what needs to be ended.

Unlike you though, I don't equate that criminality with the prostitution business itself.
They are SEPARATE.

You won't make that distinction & choose to see EVERY prostitute as a victim & that's simply not true.

You CLEAN UP that business & you'll eliminate those abusers, redqueen.
And it's gonna take MORE than just a national effort, it will take an INTERNATIONAL effort.
I will fight for that cause all day long.

But I'm not gonna go into Puritan hypocrisy just because it involves a sexual issue.
I'm not gonna go catatonic because prostitution exists.
I see it as a fact of life just as inherent to the human species as pornography is.
They had drawings on caves of titillating sexual images.
Old fertility sculptures with big bellied, large breasted, wide hipped women.
They even have this penis festival in Japan every year with a totem of a giant penis!

I bet dollars to doughnuts you see porn stars & strippers as victims too huh?
You see them as lost souls that you have to save from themselves, I imagine.
What would happen when those porn stars & strippers told you to stuff yourself?
What's really the difference if it's just a woman telling you how to live your life vs. a man telling you how to live your life?
All that changed is the gender. It's still tyranny.
Instead of paternalism we have maternalism. Wow. Big difference.

I am in favor of giving women choices.
That is why the women's movement was formed.
To give them the chance to be in control of their own destinies.
I don't believe in treating the female sex as children who don't know any better.
I see women as adults with their own minds who can make their own decisions.

And if some women choose to go into the sex trade, that is their right.
Whether it's modeling (the publicly acceptable mild form of this trade, by the way), stripping, webcamming, or full out prostitution.

The only thing I'm concerned about is legally protecting those in that trade.
I'm concerned about human rights violations & abuses.
I'm concerned about sex slavery, sex trafficking, & other types of coercion.
But I don't make the mistake of conflating those real issues with the prostitution trade itself.

Prostitution is not the problem.
Sex slavery & sex trafficking are. Assault & battery are.
Know the difference.

Legalize it & regulate it. That's all you need to do to prevent the collateral damage.
John Lucas

[woolldog]

361. Ducktales was awesome wasn't it?

Greatest theme song ever?

https://m.

I have a hypothetical for you though. Accepting, for the sake of argument, that legalizing prostitution would in fact lead to more sex trafficking. Would that or should that change your opinion on whether it should be legalized?

[johnlucas]

365. Ducktales WAS awesome. And trafficking went up because there was no follow through

I learned this from reading the stories of the prostitutes themselves.
I am currently discovering that there is a WHOLE PACK of information on the prohibition/legalization subject & that the prostitutes themselves & those who actually listened to their stories are IN FAVOR of decriminalization.

I think the trafficking issue persists because of the stigma surrounding prostitution.
They are shunned by society at large even when it's legalized.
What I'm getting from the women in the trade is that their work is not recognized & put on par with Worker's Rights & Labor issues.
They want their work to have the same protections that other trades have from the Worker's Rights movements.

Because they are shunned & scarlet-lettered from society, nobody is taking the necessary efforts to police the corruption in their industry.
I was FLAT STUNNED to hear the fact that the United States was the country that spent the most money towards combating human trafficking...
...but that the amount they spent was only a pathetic $100 million!
What the hell is THAT gonna do?! An NBA star makes more than that!
That means the other countries are spending even less, WAY less.
And that a measly $100 million is not enough to adequately combat the problem in the FIRST place.

My suspicions why that is is because these countries benefit from human trafficking to begin with.
The slave trade never really ended & there seems to be a subtle backdoor *wink wink nudge nudge* acceptance of traffickers bringing in cheap slave labor.

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) & the Global Slavery Index, there is an estimated 20 million to 30 million number of people forced into human trafficking.
I think that number is MUCH higher than that, honestly, but even there you see that is not an insurmountable number to overcome.

The world population is 7 billion & climbing.
This 20 to 30 million is only 0.03% to 0.04% of that number.
Three to four hundredths of 7 billion. That's only a little more than the populations of the Los Angeles & New York metropolitan areas.
That's baby food & if these countries were serious about rooting out this problem it could be stopped just like that.
They could track the sources & work to eliminate diplomatic immunity with those traffickers who run & hide in their own countries.
But you have to put the resources to achieve that & it doesn't look like these countries are really serious about doing that.

Legalization alone ain't enough. You need follow through with the Enforcement of Workplace Protections.
The prostitutes themselves say that Sex Work Is Work & needs the same exact protections as any other labor.
The food industry has inspections & watchdog groups to make sure that food is being prepared correctly or businesses get shut down.
Upton Sinclair & his Jungle book helped to regulate the food industry.

Nobody is listening to the actual prostitutes themselves.
They're more interested in grandstanding & moralizing. Acting more like missionaries than people trying to actually fix the problems.

I'm learning about this subject as we speak.
I already stumbled upon the informative writings of a former prostitute pen named "Maggie McNeill" in The Honest Courtesan a while back.
Probably stumbled upon it from Alternet or something.

Now I'm hearing even more stories from prostitutes themselves & I'll share these with you to read over.
"and deliver us from our saviors"
We Are Here To Win
Lies, Damned Lies and Stigmatizing Sex Workers
Opposing sex workers' rights is anti-feminist
Why I call them "anti-sex worker" rather than "anti-porn" or "anti-prostitution," and why you should too

There's a LOT of this stuff that I had no idea was going on.
Didn't even know there were prostitutes protesting feminists pushing for prohibition.
And it's a worldwide thing too! Had no idea.
It's an eye-opener, that's for sure.

I'm always of the mindset to defer to the people who actually live the life, who actually had the experiences rather than talk from on high from my ivory tower.
Sometimes the best thing you can do is just listen to their stories & learn.

Well it goes back to that Ducktales thing. Uncle Scrooge told me to Work Smarter Not Harder.
John Lucas

[treestar]

310. That's an awful way to view life

Really. Don't know what to say to you. Other people are just things.

[johnlucas]

320. What's so troubling with this for you exactly?

This is how the universe is designed to work.
Energy exchange.

Do you think your pets show you that affection for free?
No. You give them food, affection, & shelter & they return the favor.

You have to give something to get something.
We like plants because they give us oxygen.
Plants like us because we give them carbon dioxide.

And about the 'People are Things' worry.
We ARE. That's why we can be described with nouns—AKA naming words.

People ARE objects.
Just because something is an object doesn't mean we must mistreat it.
The Ozone Layer is a thing too, is an object too & when we mistreat it, we soon discover the negative consequences.

If people can have love, care, & concern for their car that same effect can be given to people.
Just because it's an object, it's a thing doesn't necessarily mean that it will be misused or disposable.

I'm not in line with that narrative that holds up human beings as a distinct category all special to themselves alone.
And I don't pedestal the relationships & interactions between human beings that way either.

We're special but we're not THAT special.
We're unique among ourselves but we follow the same universal rules as every other part of this universe.

Every interaction between people is an exchange of some sort. Whether formal or informal.
You're always getting something out of each other.

We ARE animals. We ARE objects. We ARE things.
And we are governed by the same exact Universal rules as every other bit of creation IN this universe.

Even when you "love people for who they are inside" there's that "for" word which details an exchange.
Those "insides" are objects & things too & you are exchanging your affection & companionship FOR those inside THINGS in yet another human TRADE.

It's not sinister, it's life.
It's the physics of existence itself.
What IS sinister is when one party won't trade BACK.
When there is no reciprocation.
When one GIVES & the other only TAKES.
John Lucas

[treestar]

321. We are not things

I'm not a thing. I'm not here for you to use.

I can give people things without expecting anything back.

Ugh.

[johnlucas]

326. We are MATTER. That means we are MATERIAL. That means we are THINGS.

I'm using textbook definition.
You're arguing from a word usage standpoint.

We give certain things special names.
Some things we call places like cities, rivers & mountains.
Some things we call persons or people.

You are made of MATTER.
That means you are MATERIAL.
That makes you an OBJECT of material.
That makes you a THING of material.

Do you work a job for a living?
Look up the etymology on the word 'employee'.
What does it tell you?
Employer & Employee are User & Usee.

All humans use each other for different things for different reasons.
Some may use someone as a sounding board.
Some may use someone as a shoulder to cry on.
Some may use someone as a helping hand.
You heard of the expression "I could use a few good men"
or "How can I be of good use?".

It's not the using that's the problem.
It's the LACK OF RECIPROCATION that's the problem.
When someone uses you for something & won't let you use them back.
UNFAIR Use is the problem.

Human beings love to inflate their status & importance.
We're really full of ourselves as a species.
We see ourselves as so above everything else.
Even the Laws of Nature.

We're ALL here to make use of each other.
That's how we build societies.
We use the Earth for our needs & the Earth uses us for its needs.
This is the Universe's Law I'm telling you, treestar.
It's not a sinister thing.
It's the Way of the Universe.

Read that book The Selfish Gene to come out of that fantasy you're living in.
Even when you do something for someone thinking that you're not asking for anything in return, you have already gotten something out of the interaction.
You get an internal feel-good boost.
That is your reward.
There are no selfless acts.

Thing is not necessarily a slur, treestar.
There were songs called You Sexy Thang & Pretty Young Thing.
We are living things full of anima (soul) but things nonetheless.
All just bits of stardust...

John Lucas

[treestar]

340. Ugh

We have souls. We do not want lives like that, where we are just seen as useful things to others. That's not human.

hell there are people here on DU who would freak out at mistreatment of other animals.

Gee, what is the price tag you put on your body? There must be one, right?

[johnlucas]

360. HA! I knew you'd miss it. Read this line

The last two lines of my last post.
Read it.

"We are living things full of anima (soul) but things nonetheless.
All just bits of stardust..."

LINK

Did you miss that?
That's why we're animals. Do you know what anima means?
It means soul in Latin. You might have heard of the phrase Alma Mater which means Soul Mother.
That energy force that makes us move, that makes us ANIMATE. See that anima again? Hahaha.

Some things are lifeless & some things have life.
That doesn't change the fact that they are all things.

That's not human? That's VERY human.
We all manipulate & use each other to get what we need or want.
The problem comes from the lack of reciprocation. When one won't scratch the others' back in return.
They call it the Social Contract. We MUST stay useful to each other to survive.

Psst! Don't wanna tell you but you put a price tag on your body every single day you go to work & get that wage or salary.
Are you REALLY worth $10 an hour or $40,000 a year? Hahahaha!

By the way I have been having this debate with a number of people on this topic.

This tired narrative I'm hearing on these recent prostitution threads I knew was off base.
But now I know FOR SURE it's off.

I'm gonna leave you with these articles from actual prostitutes.
The actual people who do this work, who perform this trade.
And when you come down from your grandstanding outrage, take a read & see them tell you how off base you really are on this subject.
The prostitutes actually have a problem with these self-appointed feminist saviors.
Something to do with the tendency to demonize them or treat them as helpless children victims who need to be saved.

"and deliver us from our saviors"
We Are Here To Win
Lies, Damned Lies and Stigmatizing Sex Workers
Opposing sex workers' rights is anti-feminist
Why I call them "anti-sex worker" rather than "anti-porn" or "anti-prostitution," and why you should too

And of course there's always The Honest Courtesan.
John Lucas

P.S.: The word history (etymology) on the word thing comes from those Dutch tribes & it originally meant 'assembly'.
That naturally became equated with 'object'.

Here's the #1 definition of 'thing' from Wiktionary:
1. That which is considered to exist as a separate entity, object, quality or concept.

Entity, hmmm. If I were to say People are Entities, you probably wouldn't have a problem with it, would you?
Entity means Being. The word comes from Latin's 'esse' which means 'to be'.
The Essence of Humanity. The Being of Humanity. The Human Being. Hahahahaha!

I know language, treestar.
You insist on taking the either/or stance, I'm taking the both/and stance.
We're people, we're animals, we're things, we're objects, we're subjects, we have anima AKA soul, we have value, we're insignificant, we're stardust, we're earthbound, we're creatures, we're creations, we're meat, we're food, we're sentient, we're ignorant, we're mighty, we're small, we're life.

Real life, treestar. Get into it.
John Lucas

[Squinch]

364. John, it isn't that we are missing your enlightened messages. It's that your messages are silly.

You keep on telling people how they are missing your pearls of wisdom, though.

[R B Garr]

367. Yeah, his "all the whores are jealous" pearls are hilarious. And now the car pearl:

"If people can have love, care, & concern for their car that same effect can be given to people."

YES, changing the oil in your car and rotating your tires is exactly the same as interacting with other people! omg.

[Squinch]

374. Have you heard: Ending human trafficking is REALLY EASY!!!#211!

[R B Garr]

378. lol, it is so darn easy!!1! It's just body parts. Parts is parts!!!

On another more serious note, I hope my car isn't getting jealous! It's getting older and I'm starting to look at other cars. I hope she/he/it knows how much I care!

[Squinch]

379. Wow. I just saw that.

The nuttiness there is so extreme, I suspect someone is just messing with us.

[R B Garr]

384. It does look like some messing is going on.

It's a one-man traveling salvation show right there.

[Squinch]

386. Without any recourse to logic. It's too loony to be real.

[johnlucas]

392. Yep. Parts. And people are mad in this thread because some use their genital parts to make money

They see prostitution as disgusting just because the prostitutes use their vulvas & vaginas, their breasts, their lips to make money (among other body parts).
But no one even thinks that they do the same exact thing prostitutes do only with different body parts.
Your back, your arms, your legs, your hands, your feet, your neck, your face, your brain.
You get paid by selling your body too & that's what's so ironic about the hollow outrage.

And when you tell these outraged folks that they're just whores of a different stripe, they get even MORE outraged.
I love it too. I love to point out the hypocrisy.

treestar says to me "Gee, what is the price tag you put on your body? There must be one, right?"

I laugh & tell her that everyday she goes to work she has already done that.
That's why they pay her that wage or salary or commission.
She puts a price tag on her behind EVERY SINGLE DAY she works that job.
And so do we all.

We are ALL Hoes out here selling our butt for dollars.
I don't care if they euphemize it with the word Employee or Associate or whatever, you have been Pimped out to make your particular Pimp/Boss/Employer his/her money.

I love skewering those old tired narratives & putting reality in people's faces.

The disgust for the prostitution trade is goofball.
But Puritan America ain't dead yet, that much is for sure.
John Lucas

[johnlucas]

390. 'Things' don't necessarily have to mean 'disposable'

The things post is to destroy that old narrative of "I am not a object! I am human being!"
The whole sex object protest I have heard for so long.

We are all objects of many types.
We are all figures of many types.
We are all things of many types.

The Father Figure.
The Object of Affection.
All Living Things.

I'm using the broad version of the term.
You all balk & laugh because you use the narrow version of the term.

I showed treestar the Wiktionary entry on thing & broke it down for treestar.
In that first definition was the word 'entity' & we can definitely use that word for people, can we?
That word 'entity' came from 'esse' which means 'to be' in Latin. Entity means 'being'.
Then I showed the progression.
The Essence of Humanity. The Being of Humanity. The Human Being.
But yet treestar protests me when I say people are things.

I just understand language better.
I used to study word histories as a teenager.

As for the car. You see how some people treat their cars.
Some people treat their cars BETTER than people. And you have seen this during your lifetime, I'm sure.
My point is just because it's a THING doesn't mean it's disposable or something to mistreat.
That's why I talked about the Ozone Layer which is another THING.
We waste that, we waste ourselves.

People are sexual objects, familial objects, societal objects, ecological objects.
They're also subjects, they're also food, they're also valuable, they're also insignificant, they're also mighty, they're also meek.
Everything in this universe has multiple facets.
There's no need for the Either/Or conversation. We are always Both/And.

'Thing' shouldn't be an insult.
Neither should 'Object'.
If you don't like me using cars as an example then let me use dogs.
If people can have love, care, & concern for their dog that same effect can be given to people.
People can love ANY THING.
That includes the objects, the things called human beings.
John Lucas

[R B Garr]

407. All you are going on and on about is something called "Opportunity Costs". It's basic economic

theory. In fact, it was one of the first theories in my Econ. Class 101 in college. Here's a link:

http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/opportunity-cost-definition-real-world-examples.html#lesson


Loving cars, being jealous of sexual whores because I'm a non-sexual whore, the Ozone layer, Happy Hookers, body parts -- these are all your own personal hangups that fit into your own reality. It does not mean that the real world operates in those ways, which it certainly doesn't. To compare caring for a car in any way to being able to relate to human beings is too distorted to spend any time time on.

Have a great day.

[johnlucas]

412. You missed the point. 'Things' doesn't equal discardable

If one can care for a car, if one can care for a dog, if one can care for their shoe collection, one can care for a human being.

There are some who call their pets a member of their family, don't they?
They don't see the dog as lower than them or themselves as higher than the dog.

What I did is kill the human egocentricity that says human beings are above all others.
That you should regard a human being as higher than all other matters.
I say regard should go to EVERY THING not just Human Things.

That 'Humans at the Center of the Universe' mentality leads to people destroying habitats that lead to this global warming panic we have going on now.
People are not higher than other objects on this planet.
We are a PART of the Entire Ecology not Superior to it.

I continue to say 'thing' to refer to people to shut down their egos.
To deflate their self-importance.
Every THING has value. And we treat our things well if we want to preserve them.
Do you understand what I just laid on you there?

You all define 'thing' as something inanimate, disposable, & something made to serve.
I define 'thing' as 'matter' because that's exactly what it means.
We may give special names to certain things but that doesn't change the fact that they're still things.

I try not to run over frogs on the road because I value a frog's life.
Just because it's not human doesn't mean it has no value.
I can have concern & care for a tiny bug despite its small size.
I don't JUST value human beings. I value ALL beings.

But y'all don't get that because you subscribe to the 'Humans Above All' mentality & you define 'thing' as 'that which serves the superior human being'.
That's why you protest me referring to people as things.
I bring you back down to earth by calling you 'thing' & letting you see that humans are NOT above all.

People are Matter. People are Material. People are Objects. And yes People are Things.
It's the textbook definition of the word.
The original meaning of 'thing' from those ancient Dutch tribes meant 'assembly'.
And for damn sure we have been put together. Hahahahahaha!

John Lucas

[johnlucas]

389. No what's silly is your prohibition mentality

What's silly is your "women are inherently victims" mentality.
What's silly is your very noticeable disgust of the prostitution trade.
What's silly is your dismissal of the prostitutes' accounts themselves in your zeal to be their savior.

I'm challenging ALL of you hand-wringers all over this thread & destroying your narratives.
FORCING you to evaluate the topic in a brand new way.

All these prostitution threads popping up on the forum & it was time to change the A to B format of the conversation.

You can sit there & snark to yourself & your buddies but my words will stand the test of time.
They're not even really FOR you.
They're for others who will stumble onto this topic & see a brand new way of thinking about the subject.
That's how I approach every forum I go to.

I'm not here to be popular & join the amen chorus.
Even if I'm the only one speaking this point of view, as long as it's the truth I am satisfied.
John Lucas

[Squinch]

395. Dear, you aren't really challenging or destroying anything. And your ridiculous assertions really

don't qualify as "forcing you to evaluate the topic in a brand new way." They do, however, show you clearly to be operating under some delusions about the topic and about your own importance.

And still I say to you: trafficking has increased in every country that has legalized prostitution. If you are advocating for legalization, you are advocating for increased trafficking.

Those are the facts. You can see yourself as the knight on the steed all you want, but that is a delusion. The fact is that if you advocate for legalization, you advocate for increased trafficking.

[Violet_Crumble]

396. Are you sure about trafficking increasing in every country?

What about Australia? I'd be interested to see any stats you've got on that.

[Squinch]

397. Remember the conversation we had about that in the past? There are no

statistics out of Australia since they legalized from any official sources. But they did, after legalization, need to institute a special branch of the police force, completely dedicated to stopping trafficking, and they staffed it up with 300 people. Though they don't seem to be wanting to look at any statistics on the effect of legalization, the police are certainly aware of an increase in trafficking, and are proving that with the new, very large, force that they needed to deal with the new problem of trafficking.

[LadyHawkAZ]

410. Australia pop. 23.5m estimated people trafficked per year (NGO) 300-1000

For comparison purposes:
Sweden pop. 9.5m estimated people trafficked per year (Gov't) 400-600

Sources:
AU
http://www.law.uq.edu.au/human-trafficking-statistics
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/tandi441.html
SE:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/4fe30c91c.html

HTH

[johnlucas]

399. Increased trafficking is not connected to legalization, sorry

Increased trafficking occurs because governments are not following through with protections.
It's like in 1865 when the U.S. ended that slave trade but didn't follow through on protecting the freed slaves from the former slaveowners.
That's what led to Jim Crow.
If the government did the proper follow through we wouldn't have had to wait another 100 years to be able to vote or use public facilities fairly.

When the prostitutes themselves are against prohibition, I'm gonna side with those folks.
They're the ones with the actual knowledge of the situation.
I ignore ivory tower snobs who ultimately find the trade disgusting & want it banned because they think it's icky.
John Lucas

[Squinch]

403. You are simply wrong about that.

[jberryhill]

328. Maybe you're not. Some are, apparently

[treestar]

341. What prostitutes are to the johns

and what women are, to some men (misogynists).

[conservaphobe]

172. Because they want it.

And no person or law should stand in their way.

The justifications for criminalizing the buying and selling sex are petty and overstated.

If you don't want to buy or sell sex, then don't do it.

[notadmblnd]

174. Their wives won't put out any more.

[Harmony Blue]

183. Sexless/deadbedroom is up there

the main reason is to pay them to go away after.

[notadmblnd]

186. yep

[Yavin4]

188. Sex advice columnist, Dan Savage, encourages married couples to visit an escort

when their sex lives go bad.

[treestar]

342. That saying reveals pure misogyny

The wife is just there to "put out." No discussion on attempting to understand why she does not find him attractive or to remedy that.

[Yavin4]

187. If a man gives a woman roses, takes her to a Broadway show, and pays for a very expensive meal.

And she has sex with him that night. Is that prostitution?

[hifiguy]

191. As the old joke goes,

that is merely part of the price negotiations.

[seaglass]

241. That is such an odd question. Do you think prostitutes want to date? Do prostitutes

accept roses for services rendered? Dinners? Broadway shows? I thought it was mainly a cash business.

[hifiguy]

265. Honest prostitutes want cash.

Dishonest prostitutes want demonstrations and symbols of available cash for symbolic proof of the availability of said cash for future extraction thereof.

[seaglass]

277. Dishonest prostitutes want to date? Does not sound like an effective business strategy. Are you

talking about mistresses?

[hifiguy]

279. If you don't think gold diggers exist

you have led a very sheltered life. Are they a majority or even a significant plurality of women? Of course not. But they do exist and I have known a couple as work colleagues. One divorced her way to very significant - mid seven figures - personal wealth.

[seaglass]

298. Roses, a Broadway show and dinner are fairly paltry offerings for someone looking for gold,

sounds more like a nice date to me. That was the question, right?

[Yavin4]

299. In NYC, that would add up to $1600 or so.

If a woman slept with a man after that, would that be considered prostitution?

[seaglass]

301. If a woman slept with a man after a date is she considered a prostitute? Maybe in your mind. n/t

[Yavin4]

302. So, you're not going to answer the question.

Thanks.

[seaglass]

303. I thought it was obvious, no I don't consider a woman who goes on a date with someone and then has

sex a prostitute. Do you?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

352. I'm old fashioned...Sex on the first date...Hmmm...

I personally would have a problem with that but I would no more want to outlaw that than what two consulting adults do at any point of their relationship, even if cash or some other form of barter was exchanged in return for sexual services.

[redqueen]

271. No, not all women are prostitutes. I'm disgusted that no one has called out this post and the one

below it for the glaring misogyny in both of them.

[Yavin4]

282. Where did I say that all women are prostitutes?

I just asked a question about indirect monetary payments in exchange for sex.

[redqueen]

283. This whole subthread is disgusting, as is the fact that so few have shit to say about it.

Actually most of the responses on this thread show a blatant disregard for the millions of women and children who are trafficked to meet the demand that the men who buy sex create.

Just more collateral damage, to most here, apparently.


Your disingenuousness about your insinuation is insulting.

[Yavin4]

286. Wow, you read soooo much into posts that it's worthless to even have a discussion with you

You bring straw man after straw man after straw man into your posts largely because you do not have an answer to the premise of any argument, at least not a cogent one.

No one on DU has ever argued in favor of child prostitution nor trafficking of anyone into the sex industry nor any other industry. BTW, more people, including children, are trafficked to work as farm laborers than any other profession. Yet, you bring up trafficking and child prostitution into every single argument to bolster your weak position.

You cannot, and refuse to accept, that there are women, and men, who willingly go into sex work because they do not have an issue with it and actually like the work. They don't fit into your argument of being abused as children or economically deprived or lack other opportunities in life. They do it because they like it and refusing them of their right to make that choice is misogynistic on your part.

Finally, my post was about indirect payments for sexual favors. Eighty year old Donald Sterling bought his mistress expensive cars and condos in exchange for sexual services. This happens all of the time, and I don't see a difference between direct and indirect payments.

That was my argument, but you drag in all of these other irrelevant points to my argument in order to "win" the debate because you cannot address the main point of my argument.

[redqueen]

291. Utter bullshit.

You bring straw man after straw man after straw man into your posts largely because you do not have an answer to the premise of any argument, at least not a cogent one.

Bullshit. No other response needed.

No one on DU has ever argued in favor of child prostitution nor trafficking of anyone into the sex industry nor any other industry.

THAT is a straw man argument. You seem to be more than slightly unclear on the concept. Maybe you ought to sort that out.

BTW, more people, including children, are trafficked to work as farm laborers than any other profession. Yet, you bring up trafficking and child prostitution into every single argument to bolster your weak position.

I bring it up in discussions about the SEX INDUSTRY and MISOGYNY because human trafficking FOR SEX is part of the SEX INDUSTRY.

This isn't rocket science.

You cannot, and refuse to accept, that there are women, and men, who willingly go into sex work because they do not have an issue with it and actually like the work. They don't fit into your argument of being abused as children or economically deprived or lack other opportunities in life.

I have acknowledged that in this very thread. I do it in just about every discussion about the sex industry because this particular straw man argument is used by someone (if not several someones) from the THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SEX INDUSTRY SHUT UP crowd every. single. fucking. time.

They do it because they like it and refusing them of their right to make that choice is misogynistic on your part.

I can't even begin to state how fucking offensive that bullshit straw man argument is.

Finally, my post was about indirect payments for sexual favors. Eighty year old Donald Sterling bought his mistress expensive cars and condos in exchange for sexual services. This happens all of the time, and I don't see a difference between direct and indirect payments.

More bullshit. You referenced a DATE. Not a so-called sugar daddy bribing a hot mistress to hang around with him and put up with occasional sexual contact.

That was my argument, but you drag in all of these other irrelevant points to my argument in order to "win" the debate because you cannot address the main point of my argument.

[seaglass]

300. Bravo rq - of course you are absolutely correct.

I am sure these heroes who use women's bodies interview them first to ensure they are not addicted, trafficked, ask about their childhood, their motivations for becoming a prostitute and ensure they are not taking advantage of desperate women. Yep, I am thinking they must do that because otherwise how would they know which prostitutes are doing it for love of sex and which are not? I wonder how good for business it is for a prostitute to tell one of these heroes the truth?

[Yavin4]

306. You don't have a coherent argument.

Thank you.

[Yavin4]

331. Child Labor and Slavery in the Chocolate Industry

In recent years, a handful of organizations and journalists have exposed the widespread use of child labor, and in some cases slavery, on cocoa farms in Western Africa.[4][5] Since then, the industry has become increasingly secretive, making it difficult for reporters to not only access farms where human rights violations still occur, but to then disseminate this information to the public.

http://www.foodispower.org/slavery-chocolate/

Better make chocolate illegal.

[LadyHawkAZ]

288. The word you're looking for is "commodification", not prostitution.

Although you're not going to find a lot of people willing to admit that's what it is.

[Squinch]

307. Let me guess: you think you are a real nice guy, and don't understand why more women don't like you.

[smirkymonkey]

336. LOL!

Touche!

[treestar]

311. He's treating her that way

If that's the reason he spent the evening with her.

The misogyny here is so plain. Women aren't people. They are just things to get sex from.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

202. This board is full of geniuses.

What's the answer?

[Iron Man]

203. Who cares?

If two consenting adults want to exchange money for sex, it's none of our business.

[hifiguy]

208. Um, THIS.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

209. The same reason they try to seduce women without paying for it.

Desire.

[TheKentuckian]

220. Ability to fully dictate terms of a sexual encounter with no further obligation.

What is actually being bought is not so much sex but equity in the control of the terms of the encounter (s) and setting expectation of benefit from the arrangement beyond receipt of payment or requested service paid for to zero.

Sex and/or erotic experience upon request to order that is customizable with ability to select appearance (size, race, features, physique), rough age, and gender based purely on availability of the desired visage and cash on hand.

[JI7]

222. Check out the Pictures that are released of those arrested for trying to pay for sex

and yes those are the vast majority of the cases.

[Yo_Mama]

223. They're horny! n/t

[elleng]

227. Nature,

and unless I am mistaken, they are NOT paying women to SLEEP with them!

[bluestateguy]

229. Many reasons abound

one would be fantasy, I suppose.

Loneliness: think of a man who has been widowed for many years and has trouble meeting women because of his age.

Not wanting to have commitment and responsibility attached to sex.

Are some of these men misogynists? Sure, but some are not. And some misogynist men DO NOT pay for sex because they believe they should not have to pay for it. They think sex is owed to them.

I believe prostitution should be legalized, taxed, regulated and enforced.

[Skittles]

232. because treating people like human beings takes time

[Warren DeMontague]

233. Because no one will fuck them for free?

[RiffRandell]

246. I'm just throwing this out there, but maybe he wants the fairy tale.

He's a hot businessman who has to fly to LA for a week, hires a prostitute as he's lonely, come to find out she's got great business sense, cleans up real nice and has a moral compass; he falls madly in love with her and they live happily ever after.

Wait a sec; she was the one that wanted the fairy tale. So stereotypical!

[Warren DeMontague]

256. Did I ever mention that I used to have an odd, almost preternatural loathing for BOTH those people?

I'm over it now, but really 10-15 years ago? Fuuuuuuuuuuuck.

[RiffRandell]

259. Hey, she was classy.

She used dental floss to get the strawberry seeds out of her teeth.

I hear you; all the sorority girls at my school loved that flick.

I hate to tell you Warren, but it was almost 25 years ago.

[Warren DeMontague]

261. Yeah, I believe it.

But I had a good decade or so of solid Julia Roberts loathing.

I don't know what it was... there was just something about her that bugged the everlovin' CRAP out of me.

[JEB]

247. Because they have some money.

[Prophet 451]

252. For sexual release, I assume

Humans need sex sometimes (or, at least, most of us do). Masturbation doesn't entirely fill the hole so some people employ the services of a professional. That's one reason. Or perhaps they have some sort of unusual fetish that their SO refuses to consider or finding an SO who shares that fetish would be difficult. Perhaps being with a prostitute is their fetish.

[Kurska]

274. Because they want to have an orgasm.

Are tired of their hand and have the money.

Never seemed that complicated to me.

I'm a gay guy and if there was a safe and legal place for me to have some fantastic sex for a reasonable price. If I was single, damn I might consider that.

But I'd never engage in the trade as currently is, with the pimps and the abuse. Not everyone has the same scruples that I do.

[madokie]

278. Way back years ago

when I was in the Navy in a foreign land I did for relief and relief only

[raccoon]

284. Maybe because women they are sexually attracted to aren't attracted to them. I remember

hearing a man saying that on a TV show about prostitution some years ago.

[blueamy66]

285. Cause most are ugly

nt

[mitchtv]

292. Too ugly,fat,old, no personality etc

no time, among the many reasons

[AngryAmish]

316. There is an interesting back and forth in this thread

It mimics many feminism discussions on this site.

One side declares that prostitution is inherently wrong and leads to exploitation of women.

Another side that as long as everyone is consenting adults everything is cool.

I must confess that by inclination I am more on the consenting adult side of this. However, would anyone want to live on a block with a brothel?

I live near a lot of massage parlors, most of which seem to be decidedly nontheruputic, ie "all asian staff". They don't seem to cause trouble but I don't go out at night.

BTW, a real massage is awesome. If you go on a bender eat a big greasy breakfast, drink a ton of watet, get a massage and drink more water. Heaven.

[LadyHawkAZ]

317. People live on blocks near churches

And liquor stores. And Wal-Marts. Tobacco shops. Nightclubs. Casinos. I'd rather have a brothel than a Wal-Mart or God, Inc. YMMV.

[treestar]

323. All Asian?

Immigrants. Exploitation.

"Consent" depends. Do people "consent" to work in dangerous cola mines? No. They do it do to desperation. Capitalism. And liberals should be trying to get away from that. No woman should be reduced to pretending to "consent" to selling their most intimate parts and putting themselves in danger of disease and assault. Thinking there is nothing else they have to offer.

[JEB]

329. They could yield to the economic draft

and enlist in the military. Killing for empire and perhaps dying or giving up limbs etc. Many have given up so much because they were reduced to pretending consent. We live in a harsh world that can't seem to find better ways.

[treestar]

337. That could be so

But then the military has become surpassingly picky. They might not qualify. Especially if they are here illegally.

[Yavin4]

330. Most humans are trafficked to work on farms, in restaurants, in hotels, in nail salons, etc.

And that includes children. But, those don't involve sex, so nobody gives a fuck.

[johnlucas]

333. Yep. You got to the real nitty gritty on that one

Americans lose their goddamned minds about anything involving sex.
It just ain't rational & probably never will be.
This country is infantile on sexual issues. That's why sexual education is in the Dark Ages.

Human trafficking AKA modern-day slavery is a MAJOR worldwide issue.
And like you say it goes WAY further than the sex trade.

It's a human rights violation.
NO ONE should be forced into doing something against their will.
Eliminate these modern-day slave-traders in ALL professions & see things improve for human dignity.
John Lucas

[treestar]

339. It's not infantile not to want your body

that involved with another's unless they are someone who matters to you and you matter to them. And to not wish that on others or dismiss them if they got stuck with it.

No one is really doing it voluntarily. Any other work is better and more conducive to a person's dignity. We aren't just useful things.

[treestar]

338. Sex is a bit more intrusive

to a person's body than working on farms, restaurants, etc.

[Yavin4]

402. Tell that to the children who work on cocoa farms in Africa

A child’s workday typically begins at six in the morning and ends in the evening.[18] Some of the children use chainsaws to clear the forests.[17] Other children climb the cocoa trees to cut bean pods using a machete. These large, heavy, dangerous knives are the standard tools for children on the cocoa farms,[18] which violates international labor laws and a UN convention on eliminating the worst forms of child labor.[24][32] Once they cut the bean pods from the trees, the children pack the pods into sacks that weigh more than 100 pounds when full and drag them through the forest [17] Aly Diabate, a former cocoa slave, said, “Some of the bags were taller than me. It took two people to put the bag on my head. And when you didn’t hurry, you were beaten.”[4]

http://www.foodispower.org/slavery-chocolate/

[Squinch]

347. The two positions you describe are not mutually exclusive. There is no one on this board who

has a problem with consenting adults doing anything. Prostitution is not inherently wrong, however there are enough countries which have legalized prostitution and enough studies of the effects of that legalization that we know that legalization increases trafficking. And the increase is greatest in wealthy, democratically-governed countries. Like the US. And trafficking IS inherently wrong.

[LadyHawkAZ]

411. "There is no one on this board who has a problem with consenting adults doing anything"

BULL.

One recent example. Just one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025366495

Harmony Blue (3,847 posts)
Why does Belle Knox consider herself a feminist?

graegoyle (267 posts)
1. Because stupid people believe stupid things.
Actually, lots of "smart" people do, too.

Tuesday Afternoon (53,692 posts)
2. I consider myself Queen of Bakerfield.
Doesn't make it so, though

seaglass (5,898 posts)
11. Don't know, probably because of her ability to disassociate

marions ghost (17,250 posts)
91. That is REALLY sad
--and she thinks this is fun? Life as a porn star freak

Scout (8,568 posts)
16. she gets more attention that way n/t

WinkyDink (41,480 posts)
167. All people are creatures of their society. And Western society has become pornographied.
We now see young women in public attired in ways men once paid good money to see in darkened theatres

treestar (51,421 posts)
66. Because maybe they think women are driven into it by the patriarchy?

Women of the 19th century had that "choice" too, along with the "choice" to get married and have children and not work, etc.

A society in which sex was truly equal wouldn't have prostitution, because it wouldn't be something women could sell or men could buy.

Trying to pretend they are ordinary "workers" making a choice to take on that particular "job" is ridiculous. How many men get to "choose" that job? Why don't they? Because there is no market for it.

Insults, slut shaming, not a real feminist, not a real choice, and one bona fide untruth about male workers as a bonus. If that's what not having a problem with it looks like, I'd hate to see what having a problem with it looks like. And that's just one thread, on one woman, who made a very public consenting choice.

That is a repeating theme, not a one-off. The real complaint is about socially unapproved sex, not about trafficking. If it were about trafficking, not consenting adults, people would not be suggesting that nonparticipants be punished instead of those actually trafficking in human beings. If it were about trafficking, not consenting adults, they would not be calling for jail time, increased vulnerability, higher rates of violence, rises in AIDS and STD rates, or increased police abuses for consenting adults; they would be calling for a clear and distinct legal line between consenting adults and non consenting victims, with prosecution focused on the latter and public/worker safety focused on the former- just like they do for every other industry that doesn't involve a penis in a vagina.

But by all means, let's continue to pretend this is all about trafficking, not consenting adults. Carry on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

409. Government retains the right to designate where businesses can be located.

I can't turn my home into a filling station.

[Kablooie]

355. They are lonely.

Most men spend a lot of time talking instead of having sex.
Some have wives they've grown distant from.
Some have terrible social skills.
Some have a successful image that won't allow them to get close to anyone.

There are some who just want a quickie to relive themselves of sexual pressure of course but the ones who pay for time just want some female companionship they can't get in their normal lives.
It's really not all about sex. Sexual feelings, yes, but not just the sex itself.

[ladjf]

357. How much longer is this insipid thread going to take up space on the board? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

366. A long time.

My favorite is the poster who opined that all johns are too fat to secure a mate and that's why turn to prostitutes or they have bad hygiene.

[chrisa]

369. Forever! Muahahaha!

Let's face it - 90% of GD is the same people arguing over the same dumb shit anyways.

[Orrex]

400. I'm bullish on this thread

It's going places.

[TSIAS]

371. Various reasons

I think a lot of people don't understand that women aren't always doing this on their own volition. Sure, there are escorts who choose the profession and have highly satisfactory and luxurious lifestyles. However, there are too many girls who don't get the money they deserve and are taken advantage of by unscrupulous pimps. The concept of the gentleman pimp, who just wants to take his fair share for a day's work, has become a thing of the past.

I've found most who used prostitutes are married or in relationships. I suspect they have proclivities that they are embarrassed or don't want their S/O to have to find out about. I call this the Tiger Woods phenomenon. He had a beautiful wife, but likely had needs that he didn't want to burden his wife with.

Others are socially awkward or not particularly appealing and don't necessarily want anything kinky but just companionship and a release.

[Cleita]

376. I once worked for a married guy, who had a once a week lunchtime

break with a call girl. I once asked him why a call girl instead of a mistress. He said paying made it a business arrangement with no emotional ties and if he got tired of her, there would be no hurt feelings.

I thought the whole thing disgusting because he had a lovely and very nice wife and cute children. I often wrestled with my conscience as to whether I should tell her somehow that he was a cheater, but in the end decided to mind my own business and started looking for another job.

[TeeYiYi]

391. Because they can. ..nt

TYY

[edbermac]

394. What is the main reason for this thread?

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)