Paying for sex, should it be illegal?

[Doghouse Reilly]

If money weren't in the equation, how many of those women would be willing to let perfect strangers have sex with them? And let's make no mistake, that's exactly we're talking about here. Women being required to perform acts that they wouldn't be normally comfortable doing with people they normally wouldn't be comfortable doing it with.

That isn't about sex, it's about power. You know, like rape.

What a bizarre argument; it could be applied equally to ANY job. How many people would be garbage collectors "if money weren't in the equation"? How many people would work 40 hours a week at McDonald's "if money weren't in the equation"?

The entire point of paying someone money is to entice them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. When people spend 40 hours a week in an office they are performing "acts that they wouldn't normally [be] comfortable doing with people they normally wouldn't be comfortable doing" them with.

 

[Arcade22]

It absolutely is niche in comparison to female on male. Go look at www.adultwork.com and compare. But be careful not to take a superficial glance because if you're not careful you might think it is telling you something it isn't. By all accounts this is the definition of niche. Gay men can get sex quite easily compared with men getting sex with women, this is why there is less market for it.

Then explain why more boys/men state they have had gotten paid to have sex than girls/women?

Some statistics from Sweden:

• In 2003 4339 Swedish high school students were surveyed. 1.8 percent of boys and 1 per cent of the girls reported that they had ever been paid for sex.
  
• In 2008, the prostitution group in Gothenburg made a study of 876 LGBT youth. 11.4 percent of boys and 7.4 percent of girls stated that they had been paid for sex.
  
• In 2012 the Youth Board summarized several studies. 0.8 percent of girls and 2.1 percent of boys aged 16-25 stated that they received compensation for sex.

 

[catsmate]

It should be legal and non-coercive and pimps (related) should be executed on sight.

I'd disagree with this part, which would be illegal even in Norn Ireland.

New Zealand seems to make a positive case:

In Canada, sex workers themselves seemed to favour the NZ approach over the Swedish one.

Thanks for that, it's good to have some actual facts.

Of course it should be legal.

Do women lack the prerequisites and ability to allow them to decide what they should be allowed to do, and the amount of risk they're willing to take?
As long as they know what they're getting into, and make informed decisions without coercion, why not?

Well this bill was sponsored by the Democratic Unionist Party, many of whom would say 'no'.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Hey honey, could you pick me up a newspaper on your way home? There's a coupon for 25%-off sex."

I wonder how many people would be greatly relieved to have their spouses go somewhere else for sex.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If money weren't in the equation, how many of those women would be willing to let perfect strangers have sex with them? And let's make no mistake, that's exactly we're talking about here. Women being required to perform acts that they wouldn't be normally comfortable doing with people they normally wouldn't be comfortable doing it with.

That isn't about sex, it's about power. You know, like rape.

If money weren't involved in the equation, how many people would do their job anyway? Make no mistake it is about power you know like slavery.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I suppose that an interesting (though obviously simplistic) question could usefully be posed: what proportion of 18-30 year-old women who are financially secure and who do not have substance abuse issues choose to become prostitutes? And/or what proportion of current female sex workers fall into that category?

So should we outlaw any job that fits into a low enough percentage of such individuals choosing it?

 

[ponderingturtle]

That would be interesting to see the hard data. I can only speak anecdotally - they're out there.

But here's something else to consider. The fact that sex work is illegal keeps a lot of people who would otherwise be okay with it out of the industry, because they don't want to get into legal trouble. People under the pressure of addiction or something similar might be more willing to take the risk despite its illegality. After all, they're already taking significant risks with their lifestyle. I believe that fact could skew the data quite a bit.

The women who work at the legal brothels in Nevada aren't abused or coerced, and they're mostly screened for illegal drug use too. So that's something too. Might be a good place to start investigating such an inquiry.

Well it seems there are a lot of issues with the Nevada brothels, but that has more to do with sex negativity and slut shaming than with the actual sex.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20535_5-ways-being-legal-prostitute-weirder-than-you-think.html

 

[ponderingturtle]

But you're not required to do anything. You set your own terms ahead of time on a case-by-case basis. This is why I keep talking about women working for themselves. I'm not talking about women working for pimps. I'm talking about women who choose their jobs themselves. If they don't want to do something, they don't do it.

As for legal jobs with stigma in many circles - stripping, pharmaceutical rep, butcher, sniper, abortionist.

Wait let women make their own decisions? Crazy talk.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As a slight aside, the fact that (usually) both parties in a female prostitution transaction - the prostitute and her client - consent to the transaction and are happy with the commercial arrangement, is not altogether important.

(Examine, for example, the touting of tickets for sporting events or rock concerts. Both parties in that sort of transaction - the tout and the buyer - are usually happy with the arrangement and the price. As indeed, usually, is the person who sold the tickets to the tout in the first place. Yet touting is legislated against in many countries.)

Then look at who lobbied for it. Congress almost made renting movies illegal when they made renting software and music illegal. But the movie rental business was big enough at the time that they didn't want to piss of that many people, while banning the rental of software and music didn't have as much of an existing market at the time.

So clearly some of those people are not happy and petitioned the governments to ban the practice.

 

[marplots]

I wonder how many people would be greatly relieved to have their spouses go somewhere else for sex.

Bingo! Very perceptive.

When I was serving in South Korea in the 80's, I was told prostitution was accepted in just that way. If a husband occasionally used a prostitute it was no big deal. However, an actual mistress could get you killed.

I saw one confirmation of that latter bit - a Korean woman who poisoned her whole family after the husband was found to have someone on the side. He died, I think a couple kids died, and the woman survived (she ate the poisoned meal too) to be convicted of murder. Sad case. We had the husband in the hospital overnight, just coding every hour or so. Everyone got a chance to practice CPR on him.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Bingo! Very perceptive.

When I was serving in South Korea in the 80's, I was told prostitution was accepted in just that way. If a husband occasionally used a prostitute it was no big deal. However, an actual mistress could get you killed.

I saw one confirmation of that latter bit - a Korean woman who poisoned her whole family after the husband was found to have someone on the side. He died, I think a couple kids died, and the woman survived (she ate the poisoned meal too) to be convicted of murder. Sad case. We had the husband in the hospital overnight, just coding every hour or so. Everyone got a chance to practice CPR on him.

A lady in Los Angeles killed her husband of forty years for seeing another woman. During the trial she stated that she killed him for seeking sex outside the marriage bed. She also stated that she had refused to have sex with him for over twenty years prior to the event. I was, and still am, a bit confused by that.

 

[marplots]

A lady in Los Angeles killed her husband of forty years for seeing another woman. During the trial she stated that she killed him for seeking sex outside the marriage bed. She also stated that she had refused to have sex with him for over twenty years prior to the event. I was, and still am, a bit confused by that.

I'm not, but I've been married for 35 years. Sex can easily become a bargaining chip or a way to express displeasure. It's like anything else. If one partner values it more than the other, an arbitrage situation emerges. Not much different than who gets to drive the new car and who has to put up with the old clunker.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm not, but I've been married for 35 years. Sex can easily become a bargaining chip or a way to express displeasure. It's like anything else. If one partner values it more than the other, an arbitrage situation emerges.

I don't follow the logic that says she can refuse to have sex with him and kill him for getting it elsewhere.

Not much different than who gets to drive the new car and who has to put up with the old clunker.

My wife always gets the best car available. I insist on that.

 

[marplots]

I don't follow the logic that says she can refuse to have sex with him and kill him for getting it elsewhere.

The bonds of marriage means she has a monopoly. By outsourcing, he's breaking that monopoly. He's supposed to suffer in silence, or strive (mightily) to purchase sex from his wife - whatever that may mean in that particular marriage.

Worth killing for? Not really. But there's a certain logic to it, bizarre as it appears from the outside.

 

[Bikewer]

I wonder how many people would be greatly relieved to have their spouses go somewhere else for sex.

To further the reply to this regarding Korea, I read as well that in Japan, this is quite common as well, and it's often the case that the wife pays the bills for the husband's dalliances.
As long as this remains a "professional" situation, no problems. The attitude seems to be that the wife may have tired of her "marriage duties" and is OK with hubby leaving her alone......


Somewhat off-topic, but late sex researcher John Money had an interesting take on why men use prostitutes.

He felt it had to do with Western values; "holy love" vs. "sinful lust". The object of holy love, the wife, would not be expected to perform all those "nasty" things that the man wanted to do. So...Prostitutes.

This seemed a little naive to me for a sex researcher....My wife and I were quite as nasty and experimental as you'd like when we were young and juicy.... But then neither of us were wound up with notions of the sanctity of marriage either. I think the basic situation is biological...Men seem to have a much higher libido generally than women and simply want to do it much more often than the partner does.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The bonds of marriage means she has a monopoly. By outsourcing, he's breaking that monopoly. He's supposed to suffer in silence, or strive (mightily) to purchase sex from his wife - whatever that may mean in that particular marriage.

Worth killing for? Not really. But there's a certain logic to it, bizarre as it appears from the outside.

Well, I've only been married four times, so I guess I still have schooling to do.

 

[Belz...]

In any case I have to wonder if this is a skeptic's forum at times. Here we have people that in one breath will talk about how they're all about equality and human/women's rights and in that same breath turn around and say that prostitution should not be illegal. What? Am I the only one who sees the contradiction?

Apparently. You are aware that prostitution often involves willing people, right ?

If money weren't in the equation, how many of those women would be willing to let perfect strangers have sex with them?

If money weren't in the equation, how many people would work in mines or in construction or in firefighting ?

 

[Belz...]

You're required to have sex with people you don't know and potentially contract STDs or deal with unwanted pregnancies in a job you can't really talk about with others because of the social stigma that comes with it.

Name one other job like that.

"Like that" as in "exactly like that" ? Wow, you really do craft the argument so that you can only be correct.

In the real world, many employments have physical risks that almost no one would take without the payment. As Brian-M pointed out, having sex with the same stranger for free is legal. If you're asking for money in return, how are you getting raped ? You're entering a contract.

You can call them what you like. Doesn't change what they are.

Correction: it doesn't change YOUR bias regarding sex.

You saying so doesn't make it so.

Ditto.

 

[Belz...]

The bonds of marriage means she has a monopoly.

I don't remember reading that in my marriage contract.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It absolutely is niche in comparison to female on male. Go look at www.adultwork.com and compare. But be careful not to take a superficial glance because if you're not careful you might think it is telling you something it isn't. By all accounts this is the definition of niche. Gay men can get sex quite easily compared with men getting sex with women, this is why there is less market for it.

Also being something like 3-5% of men means that it is inherently a much smaller market.