Prostitution

[tkip]

Good points about the porn industry and poor sex images younger people have grown up with in the last couple of decades.

I don't think anyone can really say that the porn industry is a healthy trade which doesn't impact, mostly in negative ways on today's population and especially youth.

The message in straight porn is prety clear and one of my female friends says it's actually quite destructive and that's the women are always shown to be servicing the men in these movies and younger girls and boys are being exposed to this thinking this is how sex is suppose to be. And this carries over into relationships. Society keeps telling girls that in order for boys to like them, they have to service them.

I use to argue but now I understand her point. And also, porn is waaaaaaay too accessible now. My message on a number of issues is always about some restraint and tihs topic is no different.

It use to be crazy difficult to get your hands on any porn and now we're being bombarded with porn themes everywhere including music videos and entertainment in general. This has a profound impact on young people. Porn shouldn't be this easy to see. Or have these themes constantly rammed down society's throats. No pun intended.

As for legalizing prositution to soften the emotional impact on men's partners? Would men be just as open with learning their women were paying for "sexual" needs? Somehow, I doubt this. I think most guys would go postal.

As I said before, if you decide to cheat on your partner to satisfy your "sexual" needs then maybe it's time to end your relationship. I think this needs to be a deal breaker and not the exception.

Men need to understand that you are clearly cheating. There is no sugar coating this. I have never met one women that was okay with the concept of paying for sex and who would be understanding about ever learning of their man paying for sex while still with them. They find the concept and practice disgusting.

It would be a clear violation of trust. I would dump a woman in a instant if I found out she was paying some guy to satify her "sexual" needs while with me. I wouldn't even hestitate. I could never trust her again.

And let's not even talk about the diseases you're exposing your partner to by having sex with hookers, strippers, prositutues and escorts. The arguement could be made and has been made that legalizing prositution only encourages the type of seedy and dirty behaviour already there and would send a clear signal to all men everywhere, that it's somehow okay to pay for sex and be damned with the consequences.

I think prositution needs to remain a moral issue. My same friend thinks the true underlying motive with men paying for sex is not really about sex at all but rather about control.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

The message in straight porn is prety clear and one of my female friends says it's actually quite destructive and that's the women are always shown to be servicing the men in these movies and younger girls and boys are being exposed to this thinking this is how sex is suppose to be. And this carries over into relationship. Society keeps telling girls that in order for boys to like them, they have to service them.

women are always shown to be servicing the men? i think you're leaving out the other half of the equation where men are servicing the women. any porn flick where the woman is doing all the servicing would be quite boring in my books. in fact, the only type of porn where you would see the woman doing all the servicing would be one with a quadriplegic male actor.

If you decide to cheat on your partner to satisfy your "sexual" needs then maybe it's time to end your relationship.

And to understand that you are clearly cheating. There is no sugar coating this. I have never met one women that was okay with the concept of paying for sex and who would be understanding about ever learning of their man paying for sex while still with them. They find the concept and practice disgusting.

infidelity has nothing to do with prostitution.

And let's not even talk about the diseases you're exposing your partner to by having sex with hookers, strippers, prositutues and escorts. The arguement could be made and has been made that legalizing prositution only encourages the type of seedy and dirty behaviour already there and would send a clear signal to all men everywhere, that it's somehow okay to pay for sex and be damned with the consequences.

what about the diseases you're exposing your partner to by having sex with anybody in addition to your partner? does it really matter whether you cheat on your wife with a prostitute or the girl next door who you think is clean, but in reality, could be a total nympho?

I think prositution needs to remain a moral issue. My same friend thinks the true underlying motive with men paying for sex is not really about sex at all but rather about control.

what about the true underlying motive with men wanting to become store manager? i think the true underlying motive with men paying for sex is getting laid.

also, you should read the bible's take on morality pertaining to control over women. there's a nice part in there about how women should service their men and there's also some nice parts on the value of women and how to treat them. perhaps this is the morality you prefer? what kind of message has the bible and religion been sending to children? how do you think it influences their views on women? did it ever occur to you that the underlying motive to be in control that the man paying for sex has can be attributed to a religious upbringing? you better believe it has an influence.

 

[toraerach]

As for legalizing prositution to soften the emotional impact on men's partners? Would men be just as open with learning their women were paying for "sexual" needs? Somehow, I doubt this. I think most guys would go postal.

I believe that you've been the only one in this thread to talk about this (please correct me if I'm wrong, I really don't have the time to go back through it all right now). I think it was in response to my last post, in which case you probably misunderstood what I meant. When I discussed the husband-wanting-it-but-wife-not scenario, I meant it to illustrate the point that morality (particularly in relation to sexual issues) is always shifting. I did not intend to suggest that legal prostitution would allow men to get their jollies elsewhere when their wives were not up to it. My intention was to illustrate this shift in morality with our society's attitudes to sex within marriage. It's been less than 30 years since marital rape was criminalized in Canada. Before 1982, a man could demand sex from his wife. This was, by law, his right, and she would have no legal recourse. Accompanying the women's rights movement was a realignment of our moral values that made this behaviour not a right, but a crime. It seems our morality surrounding sexual issues has realigned in general to position "consenting" as good, and "unconsenting" as bad. My point was to illustrate the fact that prior to 1969, consenting same-sex sexual activity was considered immoral enough to be illegal, while men were allowed to rape their unconsenting wives. If we are moving to a consent-based understanding of a positive sexual morality, it only makes sense that we should re-examine our laws surrounding prostitution (to ensure that those able to give consent can give consent whilst not being criminalized).

I don't think anyone can really say that the porn industry is a healthy trade which doesn't impact, mostly in negative ways on today's population and especially youth.

What's the alternative? Sexual repression can be much more harmful. Besides, Canada does have laws prohibiting pornography that is deemed to be obscene (violent, degrading, etc.). The 1992 Supreme Court decision in R. v. Butler established what is called the "standard of community tolerance" in order to qualify what is considered obscene material. The 2005 so-called "swingers' club decision" (R. v. Labaye and R. v. Kouri) did away with this test in favour of a more objective harm-based test.

Now some could argue that pornography is always violent or always degrading, but some could also argue (and many have) that heterosexual intercourse is always violent and degrading, that marriage and the family as institutions themselves are violent and degrading towards women, etc. What is violent and what is degrading can often be subjective. The law should allow for people to make up their own minds - hence, why we require consent.

The message in straight porn is prety clear and one of my female friends says it's actually quite destructive and that's the women are always shown to be servicing the men in these movies and younger girls and boys are being exposed to this thinking this is how sex is suppose to be. And this carries over into relationships. Society keeps telling girls that in order for boys to like them, they have to service them.

I use to argue but now I understand her point. And also, porn is waaaaaaay too accessible now. My message on a number of issues is always about some restraint and tihs topic is no different.

It's not just men watching (or enjoying) porn. And haven't you ever seen Hung? It's not just men paying for sex either (though I suppose HBO is not as credible a source as academic studies...).

 

[tkip]

So you think a fictional show like Hung is evidence for hordes of women paying men for sex.

Sorry, there is a tiny group of women out there doing this. The vast majority of women don't have to pay for sex. They can just go out and wait for the guys to hit on them. You would have to be a very unattactive looking woman to be totally ignored by men. So the bottem line is that 99% of people paying for sex are men. It's a male issue. This needs to be addressed.

And I don't even know why you're talking about consentual sex and the past when the topic is about men and the paying for sex. The two aren't even remotely related. Stay on topic.

As for porn? The very nature of porn as portrayed by men towards men of women needs to be talked about. Women are not portrayed in a very postive manner in porn. This is always pointed out to me by women but the guys are always getting defensive and saying that nothing is wrong with porn or how women are treated in them. There is obvious degradation towards women in most porn.

And I'm sorry but you're not going to win the "legalize" the prositution issue by suggesting that it alleviates men's sexual frustration at home with their women. Pure bullsiht. It's giving them a licence to step out and cheat. Pure and simple. Show me a woman that's actually going to support legalizing prositution based on that arguement?

All the women I meet and talk about this topic absolutely hate the concept of paying for sex and costantly say the problem is men. It's the underlying reason and source of the problems involved with paying for sex.

I also don't equate more females watching porn as a triumptant big win for the socially progressive movement of our society or women's rights either.

It just means that they've been conditioned and become new customers now. They're buying into the themes that porn and the entertainment industry tell them is okay. I think you misunderstood my previous points on this matter. The bottem line is that prositution and the entire pay for sex industry is driven by men and there is complete exploitation and abuse towards women in the industry.

There is nothing healthy about it. A lot of guys are in complete denial about this and always try to justifiy for allowing paying a women for sex as an outlet for sexual needs and some kind of right.

.

 

[doug]

The bottem line is that prositution and the entire pay for sex industry is driven by men and there is complete exploitation and abuse towards women in the industry.

In your opinion.

What about Heidi Fleiss?

 

[toraerach]

So you think a fictional show like Hung is evidence for hordes of women paying men for sex.

Sorry, there is a tiny group of women out there doing this. The vast majority of women don't have to pay for sex. They can just go out and wait for the guys to hit on them. You would have to be a very unattactive looking woman to be totally ignored by men. So the bottem line is that 99% of people paying for sex are men. It's a male issue. This needs to be addressed.

I highly doubt the vast majority of men are paying for sex either.

And I don't even know why you're talking about consentual sex and the past when the topic is about men and the paying for sex. The two aren't even remotely related. Stay on topic.

The topic is prostitution. Over the past few decades, the law has been adjusted many times to allow for consenting sexual activity between adults and to disallow unconsenting sexual activity. Changing our laws surrounding prostitution to allow for an exchange of money when both participants are consenting adults seems to me like a logical extension of this trend.

As for porn? The very nature of porn as portrayed by men towards men of women needs to be talked about. Women are not portrayed in a very postive manner in porn. This is always pointed out to me by women but the guys are always getting defensive and saying that nothing is wrong with porn or how women are treated in them. There is obvious degradation towards women in most porn.

You should talk to more women about this. Opinions differ even/especially amongst feminists (remember the Great Sex Wars of the 1980s?). In the decision in R. v. Butler, the Supreme Court introduced the standard of community tolerance in response to the feminist backlash against pornography (some parts of the decision were lifted from the work of Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon). Yet, feminists have never been in consensus when it comes to porn, and it seems as if today the so-called "sex-positivie" feminists have generally more support.

And I'm sorry but you're not going to win the "legalize" the prositution issue by suggesting that it alleviates men's sexual frustration at home with their women. Pure bullsiht. It's giving them a licence to step out and cheat. Pure and simple. Show me a woman that's actually going to support legalizing prositution based on that arguement?

You made this argument up. Personally though, I don't think the state should play any role in ensuring that your spouse doesn't cheat on you. You're just going to have to trust your spouse not to, and if you can't, it's probably not that great of a marriage to begin with.

All the women I meet and talk about this topic absolutely hate the concept of paying for sex and costantly say the problem is men. It's the underlying reason and source of the problems involved with paying for sex.

Again, talk to more women from different social backgrounds. Remember, the fight to decriminalize prostitution has been one taken up mostly by women. The government should not be in the business of controlling what consenting adults do with their bodies (including prostitution). I know many women (and men) who reject prostitution laws for this reason alone.

I also don't equate more females watching porn as a triumptant big win for the socially progressive movement of our society or women's rights either.

It just means that they've been conditioned and become new customers now. They're buying into the themes that porn and the entertainment industry tell them is okay. I think you misunderstood my previous points on this matter. The bottem line is that prositution and the entire pay for sex industry is driven by men and there is complete exploitation and abuse towards women in the industry.

Well, if you actually read the article I linked to, you would have read about the McGill University study that measured physical responses to pornography. Men and women enjoyed it - on a physical level - almost identically. Both men and women became aroused 30 seconds into viewing it, and this arousal peaked in both at around 11-12 minutes into the experience. The study suggests that women are actually socially conditioned not to view pornography.

EDIT: I just found this lovely quote from Ellen Willis, the woman who first coined the term "sex-positivie feminism": "As we saw it, the claim that 'pornography is violence against women' was code for the neo-Victorian idea that men want sex and women endure it." If we substituted the word "prostitution" for "pornography," is there really any difference here?

 

[Northern Light]

I hate clogging up threads with Thanks Yous and Me Toos...........

However, I will make an exception here to applaud Lesouris and (once again) Prometheus.... for their logical, and thoughtful posts.

More than can be said for someone else in this thread.

 

[shyne68]

.

Let me chime in here, and start with this............perhaps i missed it Shyne.....but I have neither seen you cite objective evidence or fact; nor your personal experience in making the statements you have.

I respect your right to an opinion, but I would like to see you clarify your statements as a mixture anecdote, suspicion and personal preference on your part, rather than an objective truth.

*****

I quite like what Prometheus had to say.........

I am fortunate thus far in not needing to procure sex........and in having a job I wouldn't trade for that one either.....

That said........if I was giving a choice of working at Walmart for min. wage, and no benefits, or spending a day giving and receiving sexual pleasure, I'm would more than likely choose the latter. Walmart would strike me as far more degrading, inherently.

To be clear, of course there are, particularly among street workers, cases of coercion, drug addiction, and risks to physical health and personal security.......

None of which is excusable or desirable.

But, I would suggest that evidence indicates street prostitution to have declined markedly in Toronto and Canada, that escorts out number those by several to one (at least 6 to 1) and that the latter are by and large, more secure, better paid and more likely to be of age, and in the profession by choice.

Certainly there are risks, even then, though a great many of these are imposed by the illegality of hiring security, opening/ running a brothel, etc.

Were this profession legal, in the full and proper sense, that would change, to the largest measure for the better.

****

In the end though, here lies the practical question to me.

Whose life is it? Whose body is it?

If I want to drink (I love a good Pinot Noir) ......or Smoke (no thanks)....or do pot (not my thing, but if its yours, go right ahead); or have sex with any other consenting adult....free or paid......that would be MY Business, or that of the person in question.

The body, the mind, the soul belong to their owner, and that is the person with whom they are associated, not the State, not Society, not Family, not Neighbours. As long as no ill is caused to a third party....no one should impose their moral choices on another.

Objective truth? You surely can't be serious........when Toronto has to develop it's own task force in order to protect minors and/or vulnerable persons from being coerced by 'pimps, johns' to work the streets for them, that is NOT suspicion. When there are articles after articles of minors et al telling their stories about abuse, manipulation, fear etc., in the world of prostitution, that is NOT suspicion nor 'personal preference' (which I still don't entirely understand what that has to do with this discussion). My opinion is based on FACT...not the glamourised version of the 'sex-trade' industry that many men and women would have the general public believe exists. Honestly, do you think that an advertisement for an escort service is going to depict photos of teenagers? Will they depict drug use? Will they even depict cost??? Absolutely not! And why do you think that is? Because advertising that sort of thing will get one arrested...so, they make it look all pretty and welcoming and totally 100% legal..I don't give a flying hoot what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. What I DO care about, are the ones out there that seek out vulnerable persons and exploit them sexually for money. And whether or not you choose to accept the FACT that this happens, is your business, but do NOT dare to imply to me that my basis for wanting to see stricter laws and penalties for predators is based on fiction, personal preference or evidence. You don't know me, you don't know what I've see, what I've experienced or what I've been exposed to ..... your assumptions are nothing more than arrogance on your part. Read my posts again, carefully. Pretty, smiling, happy girl pictures often tend to cloud the psyche when it comes to thinking logically .... the world of make believe...see how well they (pimps) can coerce others...you don't even notice it's being done to you. If you put enough make up on someone, dress them a certain way, they can look 'of age'.....FACT- people in pictures aren't always what they appear to be. FACT- minors and vulnerable persons are exploited every day in the sex-trade industry....are you saying you don't believe that to be true?

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Objective truth? You surely can't be serious........when Toronto has to develop it's own task force in order to protect minors and/or vulnerable persons from being coerced by 'pimps, johns' to work the streets for them, that is NOT suspicion. When there are articles after articles of minors et al telling their stories about abuse, manipulation, fear etc., in the world of prostitution, that is NOT suspicion nor 'personal preference' (which I still don't entirely understand what that has to do with this discussion). My opinion is based on FACT...not the glamourised version of the 'sex-trade' industry that many men and women would have the general public believe exists. Honestly, do you think that an advertisement for an escort service is going to depict photos of teenagers? Will they depict drug use? Will they even depict cost??? Absolutely not! And why do you think that is? Because advertising that sort of thing will get one arrested...so, they make it look all pretty and welcoming and totally 100% legal..I don't give a flying hoot what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. What I DO care about, are the ones out there that seek out vulnerable persons and exploit them sexually for money. And whether or not you choose to accept the FACT that this happens, is your business, but do NOT dare to imply to me that my basis for wanting to see stricter laws and penalties for predators is based on fiction, personal preference or evidence. You don't know me, you don't know what I've see, what I've experienced or what I've been exposed to ..... your assumptions are nothing more than arrogance on your part. Read my posts again, carefully. Pretty, smiling, happy girl pictures often tend to cloud the psyche when it comes to thinking logically .... the world of make believe...see how well they (pimps) can coerce others...you don't even notice it's being done to you. If you put enough make up on someone, dress them a certain way, they can look 'of age'.....FACT- people in pictures aren't always what they appear to be. FACT- minors and vulnerable persons are exploited every day in the sex-trade industry....are you saying you don't believe that to be true?

You attack Northern Light but still never answered the question he posed,

.

Let me chime in here, and start with this............perhaps i missed it Shyne.....but I have neither seen you cite objective evidence or fact; nor your personal experience in making the statements you have.

I respect your right to an opinion, but I would like to see you clarify your statements as a mixture anecdote, suspicion and personal preference on your part, rather than an objective truth.

So what exactly is the true scope of minors being exploited for the purpose of prostitution in Toronto? Please support the facts with credible sources please.

 

[tkip]

You attack Northern Light but still never answered the question he posed,



So what exactly is the true scope of minors being exploited for the purpose of prostitution in Toronto? Please support the facts with credible sources please.

Does is matter?

We know there are more than a few minors working the streets. We know there are minors in large numbers in other countires being sold into the sex trade. We know a great number of men from europe and north america are the main clients. People are uncomortable with this reality and thus try to deny it actually exists.

Somehow, it's not really happening in their own backyard. Their response is that it just can't happen here. Not in any meaningful numbers anyway so therefore, it's not a real problem.

There is absolutely a denial machine out there about the magnitude and scope of problems within the industry and that women and minors are really just tools bought and traded by men for men. Some of you guys simply don't want to face the truth about the ugly nature of prositution and the sex trade. Our own society is trying to sexualize girls at an earlier and earlier age and tell them to be trampy for the boys.

Ignorance is bliss....

 

[tkip]

In your opinion.

What about Heidi Fleiss?

You couldn't possibly think that using one example of a woman running a brothel for male clients was actually your ace in the hole argument against men being the main driving force for prositution and the sex trade.

I can see that some of you guys will make any attempt to deny that men drive the need for prositution or that nothing bad ever happens to the women involved. Let's look at the power imbalance here. Men buy women. Men trade women. Men control the women. Men get off on the power they hold over a women with the purchasing of a sexual act. Men humilate women. And all this comes down to the real issue here.

It's about control. It's always a woman that points out to me that they see the paying for sex and a woman not as being about sex itself but about power and control.

The attitude of several people here on this board regarding the true ugly nature of prositution and the humilation of women and the human trafficing is akin to all those guys at my work that see nothing wrong with paying for sex even though they have wives and girlfriends at home. That I have to explain how wrong this is only highlights the denial going on about this grim reality.

It's a dirty business where women are clearly exploited and humilated all too often. But we can't talk about this because some of you guys don't like to squirm and feel uncomfortable.

There isn't much more I can say on this matter other than to say that some of you guys with your views and comments are indirectly supporting a system where men buy and discard women for their own selfish needs and walk away not caring about the consequences. It's clear that some think that the sex trade and what women go through involved isn't really that bad or unpleasant and that men are somehow innocent in all this.

The attitude of a few on this board supporting and endorsing the right for prositution while ignoring the reality of the human misery involved is really just another example of men making excuses for other men.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

mary magdalene, should she have been crucified next to jesus for being a prostitute? what about her customers?

 

[gristle]

There are a lot of good reasons for legalizing and regulating sex trade work, but that won't automatically eliminate the abuse of minors, etc. That part of the trade would still be in demand and can still be hidden from view.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Does is matter?

Yes

Ignorance is bliss....

To you, perhaps. I like to learn, to be informed and I'd like to know the facts about the scope of this problem in our city.

 

[tkip]

Yes



To you, perhaps. I like to learn, to be informed and I'd like to know the facts about the scope of this problem in our city.

And to suggest that there aren't that many minors working the streets and sex trade in Canada is naive. Legalizing the sex trade in Amsterdam hasn't stopped the gangs, pimps and human trafficing there either.