Poll: Is soliciting a prostitute an anti-feminist act/demeaning to women?

[lechat]

or because she is financially destitute and has no choice in the matter is a problem. In both these cases, having sex for money is not the woman's choice and is therefore not just demeaning but highly damaging to the woman.

However, if a woman actually had a choice in the matter and decided to become a prostitute because she wanted to, then no, it's not anti-feminist. It's up to you to be responsible and ensure that the woman is a prostitute by choice.

being financially destitute does not make it morally wrong. as long as you don't have a gun to your head the choice is always yours. whether you sell your body, beg on the street or die of starvation in a gutter you always have a choice.

 

[aba1]

I always find this really funny cause I have seen feminists say it is both empowering and demeaning a bunch of times on both sides. Just goes to show you how little feminism really stands for these days even their own members can't make up their minds on what they want or how they feel.

 

[bananafishtoday]

I always find this really funny cause I have seen feminists say it is both empowering and demeaning a bunch of times on both sides. Just goes to show you how little feminism really stands for these days even their own members can't make up their minds on what they want or how they feel.

Ikr? Those crazy feminists don't stand for anything these days, what with their ability to hold different opinions and have debates on issues. They'd be so much more relevant were they more like a religion or a mainstream political party rather than a broad coalition of voices advocating different solutions to similar problems. That way they could enforce ideological conformity and silence internal dissent by ostracizing anyone who didn't toe the line. Clearly the best thing for a school of thought devoted to empowering the disempowered to do would be to codify dogma and marginalize anyone whose views didn't fit into a very narrow, well-defined set of criteria.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

It really depends on the situation. Hiring a prostitute who is forced into prostitution through human trafficking or because she is financially destitute and has no choice in the matter is a problem. In both these cases, having sex for money is not the woman's choice and is therefore not just demeaning but highly damaging to the woman.

However, if a woman actually had a choice in the matter and decided to become a prostitute because she wanted to, then no, it's not anti-feminist. It's up to you to be responsible and ensure that the woman is a prostitute by choice.

Agreed.

Now, if I can escort you all into another thread, away from this topic.
Please keep you arms and legs inside the distraction vehicle at all times.

I made a previous comment about this, but I'll do it again anyway: please stop making comments like this. I'm sure we can have a normal conversation about this. There's no reason to demean the topic, we can all be adults here. Stop assuming this is going to spiral into a battle of nazi-feminism vs male rights activists.

Sorry, I know it's shit when people try to dismiss your threads but similar topics have been all over these forums lately. I think everyone's a little fatigued and needs so more uplifting subject matter.

It's a shame we don't normally have nice conversations about these topics but, for the moment, that's just how the escapist is.

If people are so fatigued by it, then why can't they just not click on the link? Its not like you are contractually obligated to visit threads you don't like. Don't want to have a discussion about the views of sex in society? I am sure there is a thread that isn't about it.

 

[axlryder]

From my own perspective It's a form of commerce like any other that can be engaged in by members of either gender, so no, it's not sexist. Generally I'd prefer it to be legal though, since illegal prostitutes, I imagine, are more likely to be taken advantage of. Obviously human trafficking and similar issues result in the actual business being far shadier and exploitative than what would be ideal. Either way, you're more likely than not going to be disappointed with the quality of the service unless you're willing to shell out quite a bit of money, so I don't generally think it'd be worth the investment regardless (then again, I'm not rich). Empty sex isn't really my thing either. I'd be more likely to solicit a prostitute to cuddle with me for an extended period.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I always find this really funny cause I have seen feminists say it is both empowering and demeaning a bunch of times on both sides. Just goes to show you how little feminism really stands for these days even their own members can't make up their minds on what they want or how they feel.

Ikr? Those crazy feminists don't stand for anything these days, what with their ability to hold different opinions and have debates on issues. They'd be so much more relevant were they more like a religion or a mainstream political party rather than a broad coalition of voices advocating different solutions to similar problems. That way they could enforce ideological conformity and silence internal dissent by ostracizing anyone who didn't toe the line. Clearly the best thing for a school of thought devoted to empowering the disempowered to do would be to codify dogma and marginalize anyone whose views didn't fit into a very narrow, well-defined set of criteria.

I think it is more just that it is annoying to have a whole bunch of people identify with one philosophy, then deal with divergent views. If feminists can range from those who believe that women are innately good and different from men by birth, and that sex is demeaning to women, to those who believe men and women are exactly equal in all mental capabilities and that sex is a positive and liberating thing it tends to lead people to wonder why feminism is even a term when everyone who claims it has vastly different opinions on key issues.

 

[Abomination]

I always find this really funny cause I have seen feminists say it is both empowering and demeaning a bunch of times on both sides. Just goes to show you how little feminism really stands for these days even their own members can't make up their minds on what they want or how they feel.

Ikr? Those crazy feminists don't stand for anything these days, what with their ability to hold different opinions and have debates on issues. They'd be so much more relevant were they more like a religion or a mainstream political party rather than a broad coalition of voices advocating different solutions to similar problems. That way they could enforce ideological conformity and silence internal dissent by ostracizing anyone who didn't toe the line. Clearly the best thing for a school of thought devoted to empowering the disempowered to do would be to codify dogma and marginalize anyone whose views didn't fit into a very narrow, well-defined set of criteria.

I think it's more of a criticism of the "movement" than the members. The definition of Feminism seems to be highly varied even between feminists. It results in the word 'feminism' holding less and less weight or opinion value due to just how varied it can be.

If it's a philosophy it needs to really define itself in a manner that everyone who follows it can agree upon, but that would require changing its name to something other than feminism and it seems the only thing every feminist can agree on is that they're NEVER going to change what they call themselves.

That being said, prostitution is not a gender issue. It's essentially a massage service where the masseuse gets a bit more creative than normal and focuses more on pleasure than doing actual muscle recovery or relaxation.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

It really depends on the situation. Hiring a prostitute who is forced into prostitution through human trafficking or because she is financially destitute and has no choice in the matter is a problem. In both these cases, having sex for money is not the woman's choice and is therefore not just demeaning but highly damaging to the woman.

However, if a woman actually had a choice in the matter and decided to become a prostitute because she wanted to, then no, it's not anti-feminist. It's up to you to be responsible and ensure that the woman is a prostitute by choice.

I would say that even in cases of coercion and trafficking it is not a anti-feminist or demeaning to women act, but rather a act that is morally wrong and hurtful to a single person. Mugging a man isn't anti-masculinist or demeaning to men, you are merely hurting a single member of a group of people. To label all crimes against women as anti-feminist is fairly pointless. Also economic deprivation is not a cause for it to be immoral. Lets face it, most people work to put food on the table whether that job is having sex or making burgers or selling stuff. If prostitution was their only option to avoid starving then we should be glad she had that option to fall back on.

 

[DementedSheep]

That depends on which lot of feminists you are talking too.
Personally no I don?t think it?s demeaning provided it?s of their own free will. While I would never do it I don?t see an issue with prostitution in itself. Prostitution is legal where I live and I agree with that.

 

[Candidus]

In theory no, in practice yes. While yes, there are women who voluntarily enter prostitution and soliciting these women isn't really anti-feminist, there are a lot of women who are involved prostitution only quasi-voluntarily. Especially when human trafficking is involved. And those women might enthusiastically proclaim their voluntary participation only because they need a John's money or to keep their "manager" off their back. So the John can't tell the difference between a genuinely voluntary sex worker and an unwilling sex worker who only consents due to some form of duress.

Unfortunately, what guys I've known who are okay with prostitution seem overly willing to just assume that they only hook up with the real volunteers, despite having precious little evidence that's the case. I guess very few people want to believe that they've contributed to a real human being forced to live under borderline slavery conditions just so they could get their rocks off.

Of course, this is why any nation that deserves to be called civilized has legal brothels run by the state itself. You get mandatory health checks on customers, a safe environment with on site security and you get tax. Everyone wins.

Unfortunately, the UK government (and a proportion of its population) is too intellectually stunted and ethically crippled-- like many western countries polluted by the ideological legacy of christian fantasy worship, which is hostile toward sex in general, let alone prostitution-- to legislate this.

 

[Nimzabaat]

So should there be a separate thread about male prostitutes? Prostitution is not a girls only club. Try to see things through a broader lens please.

 

[aba1]

I always find this really funny cause I have seen feminists say it is both empowering and demeaning a bunch of times on both sides. Just goes to show you how little feminism really stands for these days even their own members can't make up their minds on what they want or how they feel.

Ikr? Those crazy feminists don't stand for anything these days, what with their ability to hold different opinions and have debates on issues. They'd be so much more relevant were they more like a religion or a mainstream political party rather than a broad coalition of voices advocating different solutions to similar problems. That way they could enforce ideological conformity and silence internal dissent by ostracizing anyone who didn't toe the line. Clearly the best thing for a school of thought devoted to empowering the disempowered to do would be to codify dogma and marginalize anyone whose views didn't fit into a very narrow, well-defined set of criteria.

Part of being in a group is having a quality shared by all but feminists don't have anything in common inherently is my point. If I were to say I am a gamer it means I like games, if I were to say I am a comic book fan it would mean I like comics. To say you are part of any sort of group means every one in that group much share at least one thing universally in common that defines the group. Feminists don't have anything that universally defines them to make them a group. You could say it is about equality but that isn't true because not all feminists have that in common some want superiority.

 

[norashepard]

If a woman (or man!) wants to be a prostitute, and own it, then there is nothing anti-feminist about it at all. If she's coerced into it, or it is the only way she has to make money, they it becomes kind of a sick case of using somebody who can't really say no.

Apart from that, the only thing that would really determined whether or not it was a sexist thing is how the client treats the prostitute. If they realize that it is a job like any other, and treat her(or him!) in that regard, then there is no problem. If instead they think paying a measly sum per hour allows them to do all sorts of nasty things because she(or he!) "can't say no because I paid them," then it's a pretty despicable thing, though still not inherently sexist.

I'm willing to bet true blue sexists wouldn't pay prostitutes though, because they think they're entitled to sex based on gender or something.

 

[norashepard]

Part of being in a group is having a quality shared by all but feminists don't have anything in common inherently is my point. If I were to say I am a gamer it means I like games, if I were to say I am a comic book fan it would mean I like comics. To say you are part of any sort of group means every one in that group much share at least one thing universally in common that defines the group. Feminists don't have anything that universally defines them to make them a group. You could say it is about equality but that isn't true because not all feminists have that in common some want superiority.

Feminism does have a very clearly defined message and meaning in most cases: equality and voice to all groups "silenced" by society. In this case patriarchy. Feminists who want female superiority have kind of missed the point and really aren't considered feminists, at least academically. And further still, there are different doctrines withing feminism, mostly divided by "waves." For example Second Wave feminism dismissed gender on the whole and thinks we're all just people, which is problematic for transgender individuals, and Third Wave feminism is more about the fight against societal subjugation, without ignoring the fact that, indeed, women are women and men are men.

It's similar to say, political parties, and religions as you've said. There are many Christian Republicans, but I guarantee you that almost all of them disagree with each other about something. And certainly some Christian Republicans want to distance themselves from other Christian Republicans because they disagree. But they're all still Christian Republicans. Feminism is no different.

 

[mokes310]

Awesome, I wrote a pretty solid paper on this topic in university.

Before you can use the term feminist, you must first agree on its definition. In the interest of brevity, there are two schools of thought: women are capable of making their own decisions and are free to use whatever tools of empowerment they have to better themselves (traditional feminists), or those that believe that women who engage in activities like prostitution, are perpetuating a culture of male domination through objectification (neo-feminists).

Both sides have valid arguments to their claims, and the issue goes far beyond prostitution. You must also think of advertising, clothing, societal norms of marriage and relationships/courtship, etc, etc...

One of the more interesting arguments I've heard from the feminist perspective postulates that a woman who marries for money is no different than a prostitute, and may in fact, be morally far worse than a prostitute. For the woman who sells her body for a sum is being honest about her intentions, while the woman who marries for the money is lying to her partner. In both cases, money is being exchanged for companionship, but in one instance, a woman is honest, and in the other, the woman is not.

Conversely, neo-feminists have a strong argument that dictates prostitution perpetuates the notion that men are superior to women, and that they can be bought and sold as if they were common property. This is evidenced by the phenomenon of sex-trafficking and abuse. While factual evidence on the numbers of victims of sex-trafficking remains a hotly debated topic, it is a known phenomenon that cannot be ignored.

Lastly, we often forget about males who are involved in prostitution. Is it immoral for them to employ themselves in this profession? Are they abused in the same fashion as women?

It's a truly fascinating debate that I particularly enjoy having.