# Prostitution is demeaning to MEN, not women.



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

thought I would offer another side of the argument. for purposes of simplicity, I am talking about prostitution as it is practiced in the majority of instances (male trick, female prostitute).

anyway, it's arguable that prostitution is far more demeaning to _men_ than it is to women because it implies that women need only have a vagina and set of breasts to be valuable, while men need to pay money to earn women's affection. in other words, men are inherently worthless (or at least low value) and must provide hard assets to raise themselves to the perceived value at which women are already perceived.

Edit: for the record, I don't 100% subscribe to this belief myself (safe, non-coercive prostitution doesn't demean anyone. it's simply an exchange of goods and services similar to any in a free market economy), but I think it raises a lot of questions about double standards and the tendency to focus solely on constructs which are demeaning or harmful to women.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

OH! THAT'S what a trick is. I get it now...


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> anyway, it's arguable that prostitution is far more demeaning to _men_ than it is to women because it implies that women need only have a vagina and set of breasts to be valuable, while men need to pay money to earn women's affection. in other words, men are inherently worthless (or at least low value) and must provide hard assets to raise themselves to the perceived value at which women are already perceived.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Affection? Is that what we're caling what prostitutes have to offer now?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Prostitution should be acceptable because massages are legal. Selling the human body as a commodity? We do it all the time and no one cares. So that is not the problem with it, something else must be wrong with it.


----------



## 7rr7s (Jun 6, 2011)

Typhon said:


> Affection? Is that what we're caling what prostitutes have to offer now?


Girlfriend Experience. ;D.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Yep, those poor men, so dehumanized by paying another human being to play sex object. 
How powerless they must be using their money to access another's body, so powerless.
I cri evytym :'(

Won't someone please think of those poor poor men, how demeaned they must feel to use their resources to access another's body for their own pleasure.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> anyway, it's arguable that prostitution is far more demeaning to _men_ than it is to women...


I will reply to the content of your post later but just wanted to say, what about gay or bi- prostitutes? And what about men who formally or informally prostitute themselves to wealthier women and so called sugar mamas?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Prostitution should be acceptable because massages are legal.


Whoa, what?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Whoa, what?


It is argued that selling the human body as a commodity is degrading. Both of these are selling the human body as a commodity. I guess on the other hand, we could say massaging should be illegal, but that would also lead us to make manual labor illegal, a lot of stuff.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> It is argued that selling the human body as a commodity is degrading. Both of these are selling the human body as a commodity. I guess on the other hand, we could say massaging should be illegal, but that would also lead us to make manual labor illegal, a lot of stuff.


Yea, only that would imply that the therapist's body is the commodity as they are the ones providing and selling their services (though that's maybe your point?)

I think the work force in general is comprised of individuals using their bodies in some way shape or form, yes.

A bit different than prostitution probably, though I know people who think otherwise. (Ironically, they often self identify as (pseudo) "progressive").

Pro tip: You can't spread herpes and what not through massage and fork lift operation.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Those men are going to feel worthless whether or not they can pay prostitutes for sex.

Prostitution is demeaning to no one on its own. It's just a business transaction.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Yea, only that would imply that the therapist's body is the commodity as they are the ones providing and selling their services (though that's maybe your point?)
> 
> I think the work force in general is comprised of individuals using their bodies in some way shape or form, yes.
> 
> ...


If that makes prostitution undignified then why is sex not considered undignified by some "reformers".


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> If that makes prostitution undignified then why is sex not considered undignified by some "reformers".


What are you talking about? Seriously?


----------



## CosmicYeti (Dec 15, 2014)

I don't think anyone can say prostitution is demeaning except prostitutes and people who hire prostitutes. If you're not prostitutes or into prostitutes then you're judging the situation from a pre-determined ethical stand-point which is bound to find prostitution demeaning. Some of those women or men see it as a bussiness transaction and they intend to be professional about it. Hell some may even enjoy the lifestyle (especially high-class prostitutes).


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Veggie said:


> What are you talking about? Seriously?


I'm relating ideas. I am trying understand specifically what is wrong with prostitution, that is not clearly acceptable in multiple other contexts. So far, I'm not convinced that bodily commodity is why because it is acceptable elsewhere. Then you said the difference between this and other labors involving the body is that you can get an STD from prostitution but it's perfectly fine to put yourself at risk for an STD in any form of casual sex. There must be a reason why these do not line up.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Wth. Idk what you are smoking and while I understand what you are trying to do, it's not thought through at all. I will try to give you a proper reason when it's not 4.30 and I'm suffering insomnia browsing this one my phone.


----------



## Laze (Feb 19, 2015)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> it's arguable that prostitution is far more demeaning to _men_ than it is to women because it implies that women need only have a vagina and set of breasts to be valuable, while men need to pay money to earn women's affection. in other words, men are inherently worthless (or at least low value) and must provide hard assets to raise themselves to the perceived value at which women are already perceived.omen.


These types of men don't purchase a woman's affection, they purchase a woman as if she's a as rental movie, as if she's a not even alive, just a warm piece of meat that makes entertaining noises. This thread is nonsensical...


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I'm relating ideas. I am trying understand specifically what is wrong with prostitution, that is not clearly acceptable in multiple other contexts. So far, I'm not convinced that bodily commodity is why because it is acceptable elsewhere. Then you said the difference between this and other labors involving the body is that you can get an STD from prostitution but it's perfectly fine to put yourself at risk for an STD in any form of casual sex. There must be a reason why these do not line up.


Errrrr... putting yourself at risk for an STD through either prostitution or casual sex is an individual choice. My point is that immediately leaping to and comparing selling your body for sex to selling your body to clinically aid in the healing and relaxation of another in a non-sexual sense (doctors and physical therapists do this too) is pretty offensive.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Wth. Idk what you are smoking and while I understand what you are trying to do, it's not thought through at all. I will try to give you a proper reason when it's not 4.30 and I'm suffering insomnia browsing this one my phone.


I'm asking what makes prositution deeming in a vaccuum. I am aware that abuse and other things occur, but selling of sex does not seem to be necessarily bad in a vaccuum. Murder on the contrary always ends in the death of another person. There's really no context besides how it is done and to whom.
I'm trying to see if there is a fundamental reason why it is bad to be a prostitute that is not really bridged to a different concept with a difference response being taken or if it is simply argument on practical grounds because maybe there are more prositutes being abused unjustly.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Shahada said:


> The two aren't mutually exclusive. They are rapists.


It's not rape if it isn't forced. She's willing. It's not rape.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Here is an excerpt from a paper that rejects the intuition based notion of bodily integrity. This is toward the end, the author is now setting some criteria for the idea of how we should deal with the body, in a way that does not treat the human body sacred and immutable. I recommend reading the entire paper however, this is also includes a section dealing with prostitution.


> So what question should we answer when we embark on that project? When should we regulate property and contract in the interest of the special role the body may play in cultural velocity? I propose the following standard: we should ask ourselves, to what degree does the property transfer being contemplated, or the assertion of rights by the property owner, raise the concern that an individual will lose the ability to explore, form, and reform his identity as a social being?
> a. Pain
> If the control an individual seeks to submit himself to involves pain or extended physical discomfort, the fear may be substantiated. For most persons, subjection to pain and discomfort is cognitively difficult to overcome. Of course, some persons are particularly lucky or resistant; they do not mentally collapse even after years of torture or slavery. But others lose all capacity to interact as social beings. Torture has been de- scribed as “unmaking the world” of the victim for this reason.190 Even those in slavery who are not physically abused can often lose their sense of agency in manufacturing a social identity. The embodied nature of our subjectivities is why the infliction of physical pain through torture can have this effect. In other words, even in the absence of any cultural meaning that torture is disrespectful to the victim, acts like torture may, via control of the body and infliction of pain, too greatly inhibit the indi- vidual’s development of an identity.191
> b. Duration
> ...


http://mediaserv.law.du.edu/pdf/lawreview/Ramachandran_ToDarby_11.4.09.pdf


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is different, but in a sense they own you in that minute. You are subservient to them. I can never be a waiter or a bartender for this reason. The customer can be such a tyrant. With women particularly. Because where else do loser men have attractive women act like they are interested in pleasing them? A bartender/server has to put up with their shit. It is part of the job description.


Yeah, I kinda agree with this... Although I'd still rather be a bartender than a prostitute (though I don't like the thought of doing either), because I guess I'm rather attached to my body that way (especially since being a phone sex operator wouldn't bother me as much either, might even be entertaining if my social anxiety doesn't get the better of me =P). Still, in both cases you're selling a service to a customer. Looking at the basics it's pretty much the same, even if one is taken to a "worse" extreme than the other. Therefore it seems irrational to see prostitution as this ultimate degrading thing even if I personally tend feel that way.


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

Prostitution should be demeaning to no one.

Humans want sex, some humans don't want to get it the conventional way so they pay for it. Some people have enough money to waste on sex, some humans need money and are willing to have sex for it.

It's the oldest profession in history.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> It's still different on many levels. The commodity being sold is the sandwich. They are working to make them, but they are not selling themselves to you.


The prostitute isn't selling "themselves" either. They're providing a service.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Derange At 170 said:


> The prostitute isn't selling "themselves" either. They're providing a service.


which includes a dick going into her vagina...


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> which includes a dick going into her vagina...


Not necessarily. Men can hire other male prostitutes. Women can hire female prostitutes. Or women can hire male prostitutes too. You're clearly basing your entire argument on ideological biases.

But anyway. Providing a physical service doesn't mean you own someone's body. You're making a huge logical, or illogical rather, leap equating 'physicality' with 'ownership', or rather, a very particular form of physicality (sex) with ownership.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> Ok well in my experience the "nerds" who are targeted talk about women like they are objects, just really hostile, off putting, full of hate, really only tolerated by the most diplomatic of NFs, just truly horrible social failures as human beings, l witnessed this in excess on INTJ forum, not sure if all really INTJ, many also on Typology Central, fewer here, but the persistent ones are persistent if not as flat out nasty.
> 
> I partially developed my defensive internet tone around such unempathetic shitheads, I actually think there's sometimes too much tolerance for people who are basically sociopaths or cerebral narcissists on the internet, I have had traumatic experiences with people who were defended as aspies or young NTs, who were frankly some of the most self absorbed human beings I've ever encountered in life. Only on the internet could I discover such bizarre cerebral self absorption. If people with Aspergers are actually like that, they should be regarded by society in the same manner as sociopaths, but I don't think it's true, I think Aspergers is a false excuse, some aspies are just awkward and nice, I think it's a false self diagnosis, my motivation for reference of it in the Rodgers thread.


It's my contention that we are all assholes on the inside, it's just that INTJs (who you apparently don't like) don't give a shit about what you think of them so they are willing to let their inner asshole shine through whereas some other types try to mask it. Aspies on the other hand don't really understand that they will even be considered assholes for being honest so they end up acting the same way too. If you look at any sort of crime statistics or look at the sort of people committing crimes against women it's clearly not disproportionately INTJs, Aspies or "nerdy" guys. Also, keep in mind that what might annoy you isn't the same as what might annoy others. For example it's INFPs that make me want to pull my hair out and scream precisely because of the disconnect between their words and their actions. At least INTJs who act like assholes will tell you that they are an asshole up front. :happy:

Also, just for a more general understanding of how people work you need to remember that many people place a lot of emphasis on their every day experiences (INTJs do for instance). If you look on this forum you will see several of the biggest "feminists" continually talk about one or more terrible relationships they had where a man abused them mentally or physically. It's just human nature that if you have a bad experience like this that you start to build up a negative stereotype of that sort of person (so in this case a negative stereotype of women). "Nerds" are pretty damn susceptible to having negative experiences with women (because they are usually unattractive and socially awkward), so it probably is statistically true that a nerd is more likely to hate women than a "normal" person. You talk a lot about Narcissism here, but from a nerdy guy point of view that sort of behavior would most likely be seen in the actions of histrionic girls who use nerdy guys (often several at the same time) to provide them with emotional support. I've seen that sort of thing happen over and over and over again and a bunch of younger "nerds" don't understand what is going on and get completely used and then end up bitter about it. I think me and you are probably both a little bit older than the average person on a forum like this, so we might see these things where others sometimes don't. I saw in another thread you were warning girls that they can't "fix" the asshole guys and will just get used for sex. I assume that's based off your own experience from seeing such guys in action. However, on the flip side, I've seen these sort of histrionic girls in action and I try to warn guys against them, but many get used and then become the bitter sort of Elliot Rodgers supporters.

As for the notion that nerdy guys get negatively stereotypes, I DO really think that is true for some degree. I'll just tell you one thing that I see happen a lot on forums like this that's really insulting to nerdy guys and shows an obvious stereotype. A nerdy guy will be trying really hard to get a girlfriend. He will be talking to girls, trying to learn better social skills, trying to eat healthier and improve his acne etc. Then he will go on a forum like this and make a post saying, "i'm really depressed because I can't get a girlfriend" and damn near everyone will just assume he sits in his moms basement all day eating doritos and playing World of Warcraft. There are actually a lot of nerdy guys who try REALLY REALLY hard to find a girlfriend and society dismisses them all by assuming the reason they are single is because they aren't even trying. When you are trying really hard to do something and then everyone assumes you're a lazy piece of shit that's pretty damn insulting. There really IS a stereotype of nerdy guys as being worthless failures who inexplicably want a 10/10 girlfriend and this whole Elliot Rodgers thing just plays right into that crap. Maybe it's really true in his case, but people are just WAAAY to eager to use it to hold up their stereotypes instead of actually trying to look at what happened.

View attachment 280378

Honestly, that picture would make me think Aspergers way more than NPD. That's a completely socially retarded thing to say.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Derange At 170 said:


> Not necessarily. Men can hire other male prostitutes. Women can hire female prostitutes. Or women can hire male prostitutes too. You're clearly basing your entire argument on ideological biases.
> 
> But anyway. Providing a physical service doesn't mean you own someone's body. You're making a huge logical, or illogical rather, leap equating 'physicality' with 'ownership', or rather, a very particular form of physicality (sex) with ownership.


It was just an example, jeez...

I never said they _own_ their bodies also.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> which includes a dick going into her vagina...


It's HER vagina so isn't it HER choice what she does with it?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Kink said:


> Yeah, I kinda agree with this... Although I'd still rather be a bartender than a prostitute (though I don't like the thought of doing either), because I guess I'm rather attached to my body that way (especially since being a phone sex operator wouldn't bother me as much either, might even be entertaining if my social anxiety doesn't get the better of me =P). Still, in both cases you're selling a service to a customer. Looking at the basics it's pretty much the same, even if one is taken to a "worse" extreme than the other. Therefore it seems irrational to see prostitution as this ultimate degrading thing even if I personally tend feel that way.


The woman bartending and working the register at a gas station pose the same question as the OP. Who is being degraded? Who is undignified? If a man starts saying inappropriate comments to the girl at the register, he is degrading himself imo. It could be argued, that he degrades her by creating that situation. They are both now in an undignified situation.

I do see strip clubs as somewhat insulting to me. I have never liked them, and only go if I have to, like a bachelor party. These women act like they are interested in me. They are toying with my sexual and romantic feelings. They are trying to use my most primal urges and wildest dreams against me. It doesn't actually bother me, because that is their job. But she is acting unbecoming, and trying to bring me with her. She wants me to treat her like an object, and treats me like an object. The whole atmosphere demands degradation. 

That's one thing about porn and prostitution. Even if it is legal, I think it will always be a shady industry that naturally attracts damaged people, and those who exploit them.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> It's HER vagina so isn't it HER choice what she does with it?


yes, but a big percentage of prostitution include women who have no other choice than to sell their bodies. addicts, low class even downright poor. because it's the only thing they have that can make them money at that stage of their lives. and most of the times they are being taken advantage of by pimps.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> yes, but a big percentage of prostitution include women who have no other choice than to sell their bodies. addicts, low class even downright poor. because it's the only thing they have that can make them money at that stage of their lives. and most of the times they are being taken advantage of by pimps.


But these aren't arguments against prostitution, they are arguments against organized crime being in charge of prostitution. If it were legal and run by legitimate businesses these sort of issues would be drastically reduced. Presumably there would be laws requiring prostitutes to pass drug and STD tests and laws to make sure the prostitutes took home a fair wage instead of having it stolen by their pimp.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> But these aren't arguments against prostitution, they are arguments against organized crime being in charge of prostitution. If it were legal and run by legitimate businesses these sort of issues would be drastically reduced. Presumably there would be laws requiring prostitutes to pass drug and STD tests and laws to make sure the prostitutes took home a fair wage instead of having it stolen by their pimp.


They are arguments against prostitution in the way it currently exists in our time (and likely ever). Women can turn to prostitution because they are of need even without pimps, so the issue remains even if there's no organized crime involved. Trafficking is a huge social problem and is intertwined with prostitution. I'm not arguing the morals, but the reality of it.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> yes, but a big percentage of prostitution include women who have no other choice than to sell their bodies. addicts, low class even downright poor. because it's the only thing they have that can make them money at that stage of their lives. and most of the times they are being taken advantage of by pimps.


The problem with sex slavery isn't the sex, it's the slavery.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> They are arguments against prostitution in the way it currently exists in our time (and likely ever). Women can turn to prostitution because they are of need even without pimps, so the issue remains even if there's no organized crime involved. Trafficking is a huge social problem and is intertwined with prostitution. I'm not arguing the morals, but the reality of it.


Yeah, I understand, but this isn't a thread arguing if sex trafficking is bad. We can all agree that it is. However, prostitution itself is much more of a gray area.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Derange At 170 said:


> The problem with sex slavery isn't the sex, it's the slavery.


Really I agree. If they had a man robot, that was clean and had all the function of a man, I would totally buy him depending on how I would need to charge him.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

As I said in my initial posts, I agree with the issue not being so black and white, that the men who go to prostitutes also can't claim that as their proudest moment and that they too face certain dangers and concerns, so I think any view that says one side is 100% degraded and the other is 100% not, is not true, nor is this a clear case of victim vs criminal or whatever.

Having said that, it's still way more degrading and demeaning and dangerous for women who engage in this practice. And I think the only way some hetero men would understand that is if they were in prison and felt they had no realistic choice but engage in gay sex to survive. Actually that has the additional issue of sex with gender you don't like. So maybe not a good example.

Or maybe applies more to gay men in prison. Or if it's a gay man who thinks this way, maybe he can envision a world made up of mostly gay people and that when he is down on his luck, he is forced to entertain the idea of prostitution as last resort. Anyhow, they would come to realize that the desperation involved and the private and invasive nature of this business transaction of sorts, is more degrading to the person offering it than to the one receiving it.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> which includes a dick going into her vagina...


So? What's your point?

If I sell you my services as a plumber it's my hand going in a drain.

If I sell you my services as a mover, then it's your desk going over my shoulder.

In either case I'm "selling my body".


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Thalassa said:


> Entitlement is the sense that something should be yours, even if you have to engage in criminal or immoral behavior to acquire it. Most people feel entitled to food and air, which is sane, but you cannot necessarily be entitled to sex since it involves the conscious will of another human being. People who are morally opposed to prostitution see the sense of entitlement inherent in men who seek prostitutes, since it's a form of exploitation and human trafficking. And tricking and lying to someone to get anything other than air or food or immediate shelter also reeks of entitlement. It says I'll do anything to get this, because it's my right as a man. Elliot Rodgers had an enormous sense of entitlement and you and your buddy even disputed that despite his murderous rage.
> 
> I am not morally opposed to all prostitution personally, but only approve in the most truly voluntary cases and when it is safe and regulated. Yes any person who pays for sex with a minor, person being pimped or coerced, or who is being truly exploited in any way has an outrageous sense of entitlement. And before you bring up your ridiculous metaphor, I don't think waiters should be exploited either.


Are we gonna need a new law like Godwin's to describe the probability of an online discussion bringing up Elliott Rodger as it grows longer? >.>

Here are a couple of definitions of entitlement from the dictionary: 

: the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something
: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)

Note the language there. Deserve to be _given_ something. Deserve to _have_, _do_, or _get_ something. 

Men who seek prostitutes are not automatically engaging in a mindset of entitlement. They are actually admitting, by paying money, that they have to "pay to play," so to speak. That's not entitlement inherently. 

Certainly anyone can pay for a prostitute and have a mindset of entitlement about sex - the two are not mutually-exclusive. But the one does not automatically follow from the other either. 

Human trafficking and exploitation are ugly things and they hurt a lot of people. 

And tricking and lying and/or paying doesn't say, "I'll do anything to get this." It says, "I'll trick/lie/pay to get this." There are plenty of people who lie and trick, or pay money for something they struggle to get otherwise, who would never resort to physical violence and coercion to get what they want. Many people have limits to the lengths they'll go to get something.

There is a difference, too, between wanting something strongly and believing that something is owed to you. A guy might rob a bank to get money - doesn't necessarily mean he feels the money is owed to him. Maybe he's desperate or he doesn't have strong moral principles and thinks bank robbing is an exciting, efficient way to get funds. Maybe he feels he's earned it if he can pull off stealing it.

Behavior is more complex than blanket application of an entitlement mindset.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Shahada
yes, there will always be murder just like there will always be rape, child abuse and theft (on a side note, it's encouraging that you're conservative enough to realize this rather than thinking there is some magical utopian cure-all for these activities as I would have expected). and no, this does not mean that we should simply ignore these issues, however
1) prostitution is not comparable to murder. in general, murder is far less common and occurs in far more extreme situations than prostitution. plenty of people wake up horny. the same cannot be said of people who wake up wanting to kill their mother. they are, I'm happy to say, a very small minority.
2) the war on prostitution is a lot more comparable to the war on drugs. tighter regulation of activity which some consider kinda-sorta questionable forces it underground where is becomes _very_ questionable
3) similarly, prostitution is not like murder in that there are safe, mutually beneficial ways to practice it. when trying to solve a problem, finding a healthy outlet is almost always easier than trying to crush the activity completely (when given the option). 
4) simply cracking down harder on prostitution would solve few if any problems and result in wasteful police spending. 
5) is it really going to help these (primarily) women to try and crack down on their activities? most don't like to admit it, but they are often better off than their peers with _zero_ alternative to make more cash. as a friend of mine training to become a cop put it "I want to arrest wife beaters, child abusers and violent criminals, not women trying to feed their kids".


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Honestly, I always assumed it was demeaning to both parties. However, I imagine it being demeaning to the purchaser because of pride. There seems to be a stigma about purchasing sex in our society - and yes, I am opposed to prostituiton in general - but it seems to stem from the idea that purchasing sex makes someone desperate or pathetic. As though they couldn't "earn" it without outright bribing someone with money to sleep with them. I think it's a different sort of degradation than selling ones own body. It says somethingn about our society and is problematic in itself, but not as serious I think as what the prostitute suffers. Overall, I think prostituiton is more demeaning to the prostitute.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

Sourpuss should buy this shirt


----------



## Kurt Wagner (Aug 2, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> thought I would offer another side of the argument. for purposes of simplicity, I am talking about prostitution as it is practiced in the majority of instances (male trick, female prostitute).
> 
> anyway, it's arguable that prostitution is far more demeaning to _men_ than it is to women because it implies that women need only have a vagina and set of breasts to be valuable, while men need to pay money to earn women's affection. in other words, men are inherently worthless (or at least low value) and must provide hard assets to raise themselves to the perceived value at which women are already perceived.
> 
> Edit: for the record, I don't 100% subscribe to this belief myself (safe, non-coercive prostitution doesn't demean anyone. it's simply an exchange of goods and services similar to any in a free market economy), but I think it raises a lot of questions about double standards and the tendency to focus solely on constructs which are demeaning or harmful to women.


This reminds me of when a dude in my school tried to be funny with the History teacher. He asked her to lend him some money so he could go downtown and get a hooker. She asked him if he was so less of a man that he had to pay so a woman could be with him.

Lessons learned?

1. Don't fuck with ESTJs.

2. There is more to prostitution than a lot of people think. I personally think it can be demeaning to any side, and that it depends on the individuals involved.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Shahada said:


> lol, "creep" is shaming men for their sexuality now? No, it's shaming men for being a creep. You find a woman sexually attractive? Cool, that's fine. Do you stalk her Facebook profile and stare at her all the time at work or school or whatever? Then you're a creep. It's perfectly possible to be a sexually healthy male without being a creep.


It is also possible that women would call men creeps if they don't like them without being justified in making that claim. A guy doesn't have to stalk a woman for her to call him a creep, he just has to be unattractive.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

marked174 said:


> It is also possible that women would call men creeps if they don't like them without being justified in making that claim. A guy doesn't have to stalk a woman for her to call him a creep, he just has to be unattractive.


True, some women can throw around the word creep and the guy would be completely innocent, but unattractive, or just socially awkward/eccentric. Labeling unattractive men as "creepy" is very low and rude. Truly creepy men persist incessantly, knowing she clearly doesn't like them and desire making her feel uncomfortable. Think Fredrick Zoller (the dude who stalks the lady in Inglorious Bastards), Edward Cullen and Christian Grey. Those are all very unsettling men.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) prostitution is not comparable to murder. in general, murder is far less common and occurs in far more extreme situations than prostitution. plenty of people wake up horny. the same cannot be said of people who wake up wanting to kill their mother. they are, I'm happy to say, a very small minority.


There are ways to satisfy one's sex drive without resorting to raping women, which is what patronizing prostitutes is.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> 2) the war on prostitution is a lot more comparable to the war on drugs. tighter regulation of activity which some consider kinda-sorta questionable forces it underground where is becomes _very_ questionable


Not really. The "War on Drugs" is a thin veneer of laws to justify the state oppression of certain populations (minorities and the poor). There is no comparable "war on prostitution." Prostitution is generally illegal because societies recognize the ills it brings. This is not to say all laws against prostitution are good (I favor the Nordic model rather than criminalizing prostituted women), but it is to point out they have an actual social utility besides oppression for its own sake.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> 3) similarly, prostitution is not like murder in that there are safe, mutually beneficial ways to practice it. when trying to solve a problem, finding a healthy outlet is almost always easier than trying to crush the activity completely (when given the option).


I question the assumption that there are safe and mutually beneficial ways to practice prostitution. Even in the example of the well off woman who does it on her own free will, which is a very small percentage of prostitutes, they are still reinforcing it as a socially accepted practice, and that means rape for the majority of prostituted women. 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> 4) simply cracking down harder on prostitution would solve few if any problems and result in wasteful police spending.


Rather than "cracking down" I favor the Nordic model used in Scandinavian countries, which decriminalizes prostitution but keeps the criminal prohibition on johns. This has resulted in reduced rates of prostitution in those countries. 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> 5) is it really going to help these (primarily) women to try and crack down on their activities? most don't like to admit it, but they are often better off than their peers with _zero_ alternative to make more cash. as a friend of mine training to become a cop put it "I want to arrest wife beaters, child abusers and violent criminals, not women trying to feed their kids".


I advocate the Nordic model, no one is advocating throwing prostituted, raped women in jail for being victims.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Shahada said:


> There are ways to satisfy one's sex drive without resorting to raping women


there really aren't. it takes a tremendous amount of skill to get laid in this day and age (I manage because I'm damn good at what I do, but for a fat 40 year old nerd....not many options). 



> which is what patronizing prostitutes is.


as long as you continue to use your narrowly excepted definition of rape, I'm afraid we will never reach a consensus here.




> Not really. The "War on Drugs" is a thin veneer of laws to justify the state oppression of certain populations (minorities and the poor).


I wholeheartedly agree. it's nothing but the government bullying and victimizing people already struggling through life simply to preserve their valueless jobs (and I'm sure you realize by now that those are not words I am fond of throwing around).



> There is no comparable "war on prostitution." Prostitution is generally illegal because societies recognize the ills it brings. This is not to say all laws against prostitution are good (I favor the Nordic model rather than criminalizing prostituted women), but it is to point out they have an actual social utility besides oppression for its own sake.


ironically, this sounds like the opposite of the kind of debates I usually get into with socialists with me saying "it is this way" and them saying "but it doesn't have to be".




> I question the assumption that there are safe and mutually beneficial ways to practice prostitution. Even in the example of the well off woman who does it on her own free will, which is a very small percentage of prostitutes, they are still reinforcing it as a socially accepted practice, and that means rape for the majority of prostitutedre are safe an women.


I would argue they are setting new standards for practices rather than accepting previous ones. the same goes for legal brothels with health insurance and client deniability. _however_, after doing a little back research, I have to admit that current legal practices have plenty of room for improvement, but nothing that's not doable.




> Rather than "cracking down" I favor the Nordic model used in Scandinavian countries, which decriminalizes prostitution but keeps the criminal prohibition on johns. This has resulted in reduced rates of prostitution in those countries.


and also reduced income for women who could have more easily become prostitutes (also, from my limited understanding of Nordic law in general, I can't say I'm a fan, but I'll save that for another time). 




> I advocate the Nordic model, no one is advocating throwing prostituted, raped women in jail for being victims.


probably not on this thread, but you would be surprised.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

It might be possible to reimagine prostitution as an industry where the prostitutes are revered and johns are shamed, and that might even be a useful thing to do, but this is not our reality. And it's not the subtext here anyway. I'm reading this as an attempt to generate sympathy for these men, an attempt to challenge the image of them as powerful men taking advantage of powerless women. They're being depicted as vulnerable themselves, which is misleading even when it's true because, overwhelmingly, there's still a huge power discrepancy in favour of them. It's sick rhetoric. 

I've always understood calling prostitution rape as a rhetorical device. There's absolutely truth to it and in some cases what happens to prostitutes is rape by anyone's definition, but the point is to highlight how tricky consent is when power and desperation are involved. People often speculate about how much someone would have to offer them before they'd agree to have sex with them, but a more interesting game is to wonder how poor you'd have to be before you'd do it for $5. Is your consent still valid if you wouldn't have done it had you not been so desperate? Maybe you think so, but this person is still undeniably taking advantage of your desperation. Regardless of whether or not it fits the definition of rape, technically, the comparison is totally justified.


----------



## JoetheBull (Apr 29, 2010)

As someone who has been with a prostitute (and regret and often entertains the idea of committing suicide because of it). I guess I should weigh in on this. I don't feel demeaned much. Granted I haven't held myself in high regards. I am basically not worth much (not good looking, overweight, work at a grocery store, atheist, geek, nerd, gamer, listens to classical music, reads romantic comedy mangas occasionally, don't like to watch sports, don't drink alcohol, and don't do drugs) according to my understanding of human society. Which isn't much. 

I mainly have seen one out of curiosity (to what sex is like) and loneliness. I have been rejected by prostitutes before (guess I am that ugly lol) and have honored their decision and rejection and not cause problems, be angry and hate them, or resent them. I try to avoid seeing prostitutes as much as possible since I usually feel more lonely afterwards (same with strip clubs). Not really sure if I even get anything out of it except some conversation (sometimes if I am lucky).


----------



## Revolver Ocelot (Feb 25, 2015)

Prostitution is not demeaning to either party. It is a consensual transaction.


----------



## Du Toit (Mar 2, 2014)

Prostitution is demeaning to outsiders only.


----------



## Twitchie (Apr 2, 2015)

My younger sister is a drug addict and last I checked (haven't heard from her since last summer), a prostitute with an escort service. I have difficulty seeing it as a consensual transaction. Most of those mainstream sex workers are adults now, but they started out as children working in that industry. My sister definitely wasn't of legal age starting out and I don't think she knows any other way anymore. Knowing where she came from and what happened to her, I don't think she got much of a say in what happened to her. As frustrated as I've been with her, she's very stuck. 

Sympathy for the john's? Frankly, I don't have any and if it were your sibling, I doubt you would either.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

conscius said:


> And what about men who formally or informally prostitute themselves to wealthier women and so called sugar mamas?


Been there... done that


----------

