Paying for sex

[chica]

Oh, of course! I guess I'm too old-fashioned and can't understand this brave new world. I should be more like this anonymous responder to a study on prostitution. What a guy!

Once I picked up a lady and we proceeded to an abandoned shell of a house. This was after stopping at a store for me to buy her condoms and she also picked up some food! We got down to business …Shortly I asked to get between her tits w/o the rubber (I had my plans). … At just the right moment I leaned way forward and shot my load on her face! Good amount on her lips, cheeks and an eye shot as well! She was suprised [sic] and shocked, this got me more exited than the act. I left her there with nothing to wipe the cum off with and her exclaiming to get something, Yeah right!​

Great tits cope well with warming, I've just found out. Coincidence?

 

[dunya]

I wonder why a person might choose to pay for sex with a prostitute when, in Britain, there are many opportunities to meet others who wish to engage in anonymous, casual sex. Look on Craigslist for example, or go to a club/bar on a weekend.

There you could pick someone up who;
doesn't charge
has a much lesser probability of being exploited or trafficked
is there of their own free will
isn't too bothered about emotional intimacy or long-term relationship
has the choice to walk away if they want to (as do you)
does not need to pretend to be enjoying it. If you are unconvinced by this, ask some ex-prostitutes what they thought of their clients, rather than those still on the job, beholden to their "employer" or regular clients.

I'm not recommending this as a course of action, but wondering why paying for it is considered by some as a better option?

 

[viva_M]

I'm friends with two escorts and a dominatrix and I can assure that they're very satisfied with what they do! Not saying that's a majority but some people do like it and do it as a choice.

Maybe you're working with a specific type of person? Cause as you said they have no other way to survive and some people working as prostitutes actually do have studies and had a "respectful" job before.

I've been working with current and former prostitutes (male and female) in several different cities for about ten years now, and I've never come across one who didn't have a history of victimization of some kind. Regardless of what they say when the camera's on, or when you're standing in front of them with your money, there is no such thing as a happy hooker. They do it because they cannot think of any other way to survive.

 

[MsChievous]

This is sort of related to the discussion of exchange of goods and services. A few years ago somebody I know was dating this guy who eventually asked her to marry him. She told him no as the diamond wasn't big enough. He later returned with a larger diamond and it still it wasn't big enough. SHE is the one telling me this, not him. He eventually broke up. So basically the deal was if he had given her a 2 carat diamond, she would sleep with him for X number of years. I kind of view this as whoring herself out for a big diamond.

Call me a romantic fool but I don't feel that relationships should be based on diamonds, period...

 

[Worm]

I know three people who have won money playing the state lottery. One of them won $5,000, another won $25,000, and a third was part of a group of workers who won a whopping $329,000! I'm not saying everyone wins the lottery, but clearly you can't deny an irrefutable fact: people win big money playing the lottery!

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/vern.htm The article is titled "Prostitutes, Feminists, and Economic Associates" by Judy McElroy. I was going to post a long diatribe but I remembered this article, which was printed in a collection of essays I purchased some time ago, which makes most of the points, and while it may be a tad long (a page and a half!) as my history of posts proves, my response wouldn't have been much shorter. You have to click on the bottom link to get the last paragraph or two.

 

[Worm]

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/vern.htm The article is titled "Prostitutes, Feminists, and Economic Associates" by Judy McElroy. I was going to post a long diatribe but I remembered this article, which was printed in a collection of essays I purchased some time ago, which makes most of the points, and while it may be a tad long (a page and a half!) as my history of posts proves, my response wouldn't have been much shorter. You have to click on the bottom link to get the last paragraph or two.

Wendy McElroy is a radical feminist, anarchist, and author of many books including XXX: A Woman's Right To Pornography. I don't mention this to make fun of her in any way, merely to point out that her main criticism of Farley's research, that her sampling was too narrow, is probably matched by the narrowness of her own sampling. This is a point McElroy herself makes: "They surveyed the lowest rung of prostitution (street walkers in notoriously bad strolls), where abuse is rampant, while I dealt with the upper rung (callgirls), where abuse is uncommon." (Her own 'research' is even more dubious when you consider that she interviewed only 41 women, only 34 of whom were whores-- all of whom were activists in COYOTE.)

McElroy wants to be evenhanded, but her argument isn't convincing because she doesn't seem to address prostitution outside the United States, problems where prostitution has been legalized, and trafficking in sex slaves, which is becoming more and more of a problem. In other words, she falls into the same trap: a minority of prostitutes are free, healthy, independent women making choices for themselves, so therefore all the other statistics must be flawed.

To be fair to McElroy, she doesn't really dispute the negative statistics, merely that they are wholly definitive. The main purpose of the essay, as she says, is to argue for decriminalization, not that all the reports on violence, PTSD, etc. are wrong. "It is better for every woman *not* to be arrested and legally persecuted for the choices she makes with her own body. It is better for prostitution to be decriminalized", she writes. But here she's just revealing her deeper political belief in a minimum of state control. When talking about going after pimps, for example, she again demonstrates the selective thinking inherent in her essay, quoting Carol Leigh:

"You want to make laws against the pimps? Make sure that you make the distinction between forced prostitution, and those who want to be in prostitution by choice. Go after those who actually abuse us. Just as in marriage, some husbands are abusive of women. Not all husbands are that way. Don't take away my husband because he's really, really good to me. But if you want to help women, go after those people who actually abuse us, but be very, very careful how you word legislation that goes after those who you think exploit and abuse us, because those laws ultimately get used against us."​

In short, McElroy and Leigh want the state to go after prostitution intelligently, knowing in each case whether there is really a problem or merely the perception of a healthy situation as a problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a typically libertarian/anarchist position: individual rights trump centralized legal authority, or, put differently, the minority should be allowed to stand independently from the majority. This is a completely noble idea except for the tricky problem of all the other prostitutes who are not whores by choice, who suffer from violence and degradation, and wouldn't know a COYOTE if it bit them in the ass: what about those women? No serious discussion about how to decriminalize prostitution can take place without bringing them into the fold as well.

 

[Busy Clippers]

Yes, Worm. And that argument also leaves out the fact that the alleged caste system of prostitution to which its' proponents often refer is not static. They don't have unions. The hooker business has its' own gravity, and she (as well as he) who starts at the top often ends up at the bottom.

 

[HIM]

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/vern.htm The article is titled "Prostitutes, Feminists, and Economic Associates" by Judy McElroy. I was going to post a long diatribe but I remembered this article, which was printed in a collection of essays I purchased some time ago, which makes most of the points, and while it may be a tad long (a page and a half!) as my history of posts proves, my response wouldn't have been much shorter. You have to click on the bottom link to get the last paragraph or two.

have you got anything more on nevada?

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

her main criticism of Farley's research, that her sampling was too narrow, is probably matched by the narrowness of her own sampling. This is a point McElroy herself makes: "They surveyed the lowest rung of prostitution (street walkers in notoriously bad strolls), where abuse is rampant, while I dealt with the upper rung (callgirls), where abuse is uncommon." (Her own 'research' is even more dubious when you consider that she interviewed only 41 women, only 34 of whom were whores-- all of whom were activists in COYOTE.)

Admittedly, her research group was small, but that doesn't change the fact that streetwalkers are the minority in prostitution in this country.

McElroy wants to be evenhanded, but her argument isn't convincing because she doesn't seem to address prostitution outside the United States,

Frankly, I don't feel qualified to discuss prostitution worldwide, and thats' a bit broad. So I am, admittedly, deliberately focusing on America, in particular.

problems where prostitution has been legalized, and trafficking in sex slaves,

Again, this is more of a foreign problem, and I think one must clearly differentiate between sex slaves and prostitutes, to me, prostitution is more of an occupation, it has some element of consent, even in a minor sense.

which is becoming more and more of a problem. In other words, she falls into the same trap: a minority of prostitutes are free, healthy, independent women making choices for themselves, so therefore all the other statistics must be flawed.

Actually, I think her thesis was that a significant number of prostitutes do freely choose they're vocation. If that constitutes a majority or not, you'd have to pour over the data.

To be fair to McElroy, she doesn't really dispute the negative statistics, merely that they are wholly definitive. The main purpose of the essay, as she says, is to argue for decriminalization, not that all the reports on violence, PTSD, etc. are wrong. "It is better for every woman *not* to be arrested and legally persecuted for the choices she makes with her own body.

This is one of the essential points, why is it acceptable for a woman to exploit her mind for profit, but not her body?

It is better for prostitution to be decriminalized", she writes. But here she's just revealing her deeper political belief in a minimum of state control. When talking about going after pimps, for example, she again demonstrates the selective thinking inherent in her essay, quoting Carol Leigh:

"You want to make laws against the pimps? Make sure that you make the distinction between forced prostitution, and those who want to be in prostitution by choice. Go after those who actually abuse us. Just as in marriage, some husbands are abusive of women. Not all husbands are that way. Don't take away my husband because he's really, really good to me. But if you want to help women, go after those people who actually abuse us, but be very, very careful how you word legislation that goes after those who you think exploit and abuse us, because those laws ultimately get used against us."​

In short, McElroy and Leigh want the state to go after prostitution intelligently, knowing in each case whether there is really a problem or merely the perception of a healthy situation as a problem.

This is exactly what I advocate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a typically libertarian/anarchist position: individual rights trump centralized legal authority, or, put differently, the minority should be allowed to stand independently from the majority. This is a completely noble idea except for the tricky problem of all the other prostitutes who are not whores by choice, who suffer from violence and degradation, and wouldn't know a COYOTE if it bit them in the ass: what about those women? No serious discussion about how to decriminalize prostitution can take place without bringing them into the fold as well.

Well, the idea would be to set up legal standards. Every legal business has to follow some sort of codes. No drugs, no violence, security guards, regular testing, and mandatory safe sex, etc. The Nevada brothel is an excellent model. Then crack down hard on the individuals that are exploiting and abusing women. Although, honestly, I think economics would solve this one. I think most guys would rather go to a clean facility with a woman who is there as a professional, not because she's afraid her pimp will beat her if she doesn't make enough, or because she needs to shoot up, where he doesn't have to wonder about diseases. It would probably drive the more questionable element out of business. Hell, they should form a union.