The Morality of Prostitution

[Ararat]

according to the Swedish model and the Kvinnofrid law,"the victimizer is, ultimately, the guy who offers money for sex. It's his money that makes the sex-market profitable, together with [CodeWord908] and all the abuses therein."

That "Swedish model" is being pushed, hard, worldwide. And according to that model, I am the villain just for wanting some toto, and being willing, nay eager, to pay for the play.

Pardon my rant, but that's what REALLY rattles my cage.

I live in Sweden and am very familiar with the thinking behind the law. I have never met a foreigner, male or female, who agree with the ideas of this law. This doesn't prevent the whackos in charge to push for it. On the bright side, just recently there was a note in the newspaper about some EU-issue where the Swedish spokeswoman confirmed that the other EU countries weren't receptive to the idea of the Swedish law.

I go to Germany once in a while and then I go to FKK clubs. A perhaps unintended consequence of the law is that prices have gone up so much that even if I didn't get my trips paid for by my employer it would still be cheaper to buy a plane ticket and a hotel room for one night to spend 30 minutes with a FKK girl than mongering in Sweden.

A link for you Westy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...en-crime-palme

[Dickhead]

Well, they aren't pushing the Swedish Model in Argentina or Paraguay yet.

[Westy]

I don't know if you are a victim of feminism but you do display a victim mentality at times. I get why that might be but I think the solution is to monger a lot more often. But then I think mongering more often is the solution to most of life's problems. The remaining ones can be handled with beer.

You could be right; my habitual defensiveness, my expectation of getting snubbed (at best) for showing any interest in a woman, my anger at being cast as the villain in the sexual drama, and my feeling that I can't do anything about it. That may add up to a be a "victim mentality" on my part.

But, in the post-N.O.W. world, I can't be a victim because I have a cock and a pair of spherical ornaments behind it; I won't say I have "balls," because the argument can be so clearly made that I'm not using them as balls. But "being convex, in the matter of sex" is the badge of the victimizer, the villain, in today's sexual scenario.

I don't like being cast as the villain. I find it even more disagreeable than I find 'going without sex'. I would rather jerk off, than be the villain.

Is mongering the answer, for my mind-set? I wish I had confidence that it could be. But when the opinion-leaders go on and on about "the victims of prostitution," making it clear that "prostitutes are the victims," well, the other side of that coin is the "victimizer". And according to the Swedish model and the Kvinnofrid law,"the victimizer is, ultimately, the guy who offers money for sex. It's his money that makes the sex-market profitable, together with [CodeWord908] and all the abuses therein."

That "Swedish model" is being pushed, hard, worldwide. And according to that model, I am the villain just for wanting some toto, and being willing, nay eager, to pay for the play.

Pardon my rant, but that's what REALLY rattles my cage.

[Dickhead]

I don't know if you are a victim of feminism but you do display a victim mentality at times. I get why that might be but I think the solution is to monger a lot more often. But then I think mongering more often is the solution to most of life's problems. The remaining ones can be handled with beer.

[Westy]

come to argentina, westy. ray charles could recognize who the providers are here. personally i can spot a hooker 1, 000 yards away and have won several bets this way.

thank you, dh, you may be right. to paraphrase, even a blind squirrel can occasionally bust a nut.

but that's beside the point.

the "morality of prostitution," as a subject of discussion, gets hijacked in public debate by the politics of victimhood. i'm not saying that to dismiss the fact that people do get victimized, because they certainly do! but i do wish to point out that many people, groups, organizations, use "victimhood" as a code for "somebody else is to blame." as i said,"victim" presupposes "victimizers," another term for "villain"; and when the "victimization" has anything to do with sex, you can bet that some guy, or guys, or guys in general, are going to be tarred and feathered as the villains.

how does prostitution become "victimization"? certainly a woman who's forced to put out for pay, by a pimp or "the mob," is a bona-fide victim. a woman who's beat up or injured for not playing-for-pay, is definitely a victim of more than prostitution. a victim of violence. just as a woman who is forced into sex is a bona-fide victim of [CodeWord123].

but the swedish model says that any woman who offers her sexual favors for "cash at the counterpane" is a victim, a "poor misguided creature" who needs society's help. and, at the same time, any man who agrees to pay her for a romp in the bedsheets is victimizing her and is subject to arrest, prosecution, persecution, shaming, and all the calumny the "decent populace" can cast upon him. there is no "shame" in swedish jurisprudence in her offering her honor; but the full weight of law and public scorn is dumped on the poor horny bloke who honors her offer!

in other words, the john is the villain of the piece, guilty of having blue-balls and being willing to pay for some tail.

i concede the principle of "victims of prostitution." the poor misguided ladies of sosua in the dominican republic, getting thrown in the clink for walking the wrong street at the wrong time of day, i'd say they are "victims of prostitution"; especially since there is nothing in dom rep jurisprudence that holds prostitution illegal! a girl who is thrown out and shunned by her family for "turning tricks" is a victim, too; but less of "prostitution" than of the family's sense of outraged honor. a girl who is forced or coerced into playing-for-pay is the victim of that force or coercion; and the people who force or coerce her into prostitution are villains in the truest sense of the world.

but what about the girl who got knocked up at sixteen, back in the barrio, and is turning tricks to pay for her baby's needs? is she a "victim of prostitution," or smiply a victim of a low-life boyfriend who didn't man up and take care of the baby he sired? and if i meet up with her, meet her price, and pay for play, am i her customer (as we'd prefer to label ourselves) or am i victimizing her by the act of paying for play?

refer back to the swedish model, and you find that we men are the 'victimizers', just because we offered money!

that's why i'm hypersensitive to the "victim" label, especially in anything dealing with sexual behavior. it clearly implies that it's all men's fault.

(i still would like to hear uni den's argument as to whether or not i'm a "victim of feminism.")

[Dickhead]

Come to Argentina, Westy. Ray Charles could recognize who the providers are here. Personally I can spot a hooker 1, 000 yards away and have won several bets this way.

[Westy]

Just came across this video and it really shows the attitude of society towards women who either are SW or victim of prostitution.

The only message I want to pass via this is that treat women with respect and not a sex object. Althou this forum is to help each other and share the sexual experiences we have with the "other women", it also is against humanity to abuse such women either verbally, physically or sexually.

SW too are human beings and deserve respect just like the way you and me do.

"Victim" is a blameful label, Uni Den. There can't be a victim without one or more victimizers.

"Victim of prostitution" is straight out of the Swedish model and the "Kvinnofrid" law. It carries a heavy freight of blame, calumny, scorn, and intent to humiliate the monger. It says the sex worker deserves respect, but the sex buyer deserves blame and shame.

I respect women, frankly, more than I respect myself. I treat them with dignity and reserve. I assume they want nothing to do with me sexually, and I'm careful to mask any prurient interest I may feel for them. I have decades of practice at keeping my thoughts and my desires to myself, and stripping any sexual awareness from my behavior.

This makes it very difficult for me to "shop around," either for a potential girlfriend or for a potential P4P vendor. It makes me quite inarticulate when it comes to expressing my sexual interest, and pretty-much blind to the signals a woman might be broadcasting to say she's available; or that she's selling what I want to buy. It also makes me a prime customer for sex workers, but I can't find my way to the door of the store; a woman pretty much has to drag me in by the prick, wave it in my face, and even then I might be too respectful of her personhood to understand her offer.

So she gets my respect, as a person; but because I'm too respectful to recognize her as a vendor, she doesn't get my job or my money.

Tell me, is that the respect a SW deserves? And, by the way, does this make me a "victim of feminism"?

[Britisher]

It is a personal opinion.

I am french. And I think all male westerner face the same issue. Today in the west, women are very psychological, there is lots of complicated situations, lots of money spent on her and very few sex. I am telling you so after visiting All countries from west europe and north america. So I am a pragmatic person. I saw western women are not able to balance their lack of beauty and male bashing with humour, personality, fun, art, wealth and "easygoingness". Relationship with a western woman is a loose loose situation. No sex and male bashing.

I punted primarily with east european girls, russians and north african women. I discovered quickly it would allow me to access beautiful women who were more beautiful and easygoing than any women I met before. Also, situations were always more simple while punting with women than trying to have a normal relationship with a western woman. Furthermore, I am convinced it can be even cheaper to punt than dating lots of western women. While men are mongering they are concerned about the money they spend but in most cases you have your pay back because you have sexual intercourses. With western women, you spend money, it is socially accepted but you are likely to have no pay back. I spent money in restaurants, car gas, phone, nightclubs, clothing. For those expenses I didn't have a payback most of the time.

So, you are really subsidizing women if you date them with no payback. While mongering, everything is very straight forward. I don't want to get into social and feminist considerations. I just don't want to enter the debate. It is here you get it and that's all. Unfortunately, male female relationships as portrayed in hollywood movies don't exist. I constantly see men who are exploited by their girlfriends, I constantly see men who are in trouble and get lots of stress from their wives. It is something I don't want to get into. I don't want to live as a slave. From a male female relationship point of view, men are free all over the world, but they decide to be women' slaves. Nature gave the opportunity for a man to be active sexually all his life. Nature gave him the opportunity to have several sex partners. Things are that simple. Then money is just an object. We give importance to money but it is just paper. In the realworld, the ends is the most important. Will you get a GFE experience, will you get a nice blowjob, will you have a nice fuck. This is the real important aspect for a man in his sexual life. The other subjects around it are just psychological. I think lots of men should take this opportunity to be men. Your body appearance will decline less faster than a woman body. You don't have biological clock issue and the need to get children quickly before you get older. So nature provided you the opportunity to have fun with sex as long as you are healthy. Why not taking this opportunity?

Excellently written. My views are exactly the same. Had I the need to write on this topic, I would write almost 99% similar!

[Uni Den]

Just came across this video and it really shows the attitude of society towards women who either are SW or victim of prostitution.

The only message I want to pass via this is that treat women with respect and not a sex object. Althou this forum is to help each other and share the sexual experiences we have with the "other women", it also is against humanity to abuse such women either verbally, physically or sexually.

SW too are human beings and deserve respect just like the way you and me do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOumyTMCI8

Thanks

[Henri Dufresne]

It is a personal opinion.

I am french. And I think all male westerner face the same issue. Today in the west, women are very psychological, there is lots of complicated situations, lots of money spent on her and very few sex. I am telling you so after visiting All countries from west europe and north america. So I am a pragmatic person. I saw western women are not able to balance their lack of beauty and male bashing with humour, personality, fun, art, wealth and "easygoingness". Relationship with a western woman is a loose loose situation. No sex and male bashing.

I punted primarily with east european girls, russians and north african women. I discovered quickly it would allow me to access beautiful women who were more beautiful and easygoing than any women I met before. Also, situations were always more simple while punting with women than trying to have a normal relationship with a western woman. Furthermore, I am convinced it can be even cheaper to punt than dating lots of western women. While men are mongering they are concerned about the money they spend but in most cases you have your pay back because you have sexual intercourses. With western women, you spend money, it is socially accepted but you are likely to have no pay back. I spent money in restaurants, car gas, phone, nightclubs, clothing. For those expenses I didn't have a payback most of the time.

So, you are really subsidizing women if you date them with no payback. While mongering, everything is very straight forward. I don't want to get into social and feminist considerations. I just don't want to enter the debate. It is here you get it and that's all. Unfortunately, male female relationships as portrayed in hollywood movies don't exist. I constantly see men who are exploited by their girlfriends, I constantly see men who are in trouble and get lots of stress from their wives. It is something I don't want to get into. I don't want to live as a slave. From a male female relationship point of view, men are free all over the world, but they decide to be women' slaves. Nature gave the opportunity for a man to be active sexually all his life. Nature gave him the opportunity to have several sex partners. Things are that simple. Then money is just an object. We give importance to money but it is just paper. In the realworld, the ends is the most important. Will you get a GFE experience, will you get a nice blowjob, will you have a nice fuck. This is the real important aspect for a man in his sexual life. The other subjects around it are just psychological. I think lots of men should take this opportunity to be men. Your body appearance will decline less faster than a woman body. You don't have biological clock issue and the need to get children quickly before you get older. So nature provided you the opportunity to have fun with sex as long as you are healthy. Why not taking this opportunity?

[Westy]

The Economist printed an article last week, that seems pertinent to our discussions in this thread:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banya..._sex_work_safe
Thought you might be interested....

[Chica Luv]

DH
You are one funny fucker (I mean that in a loving manner)! Thanks for sharing your vast wealth of experience and insight.

I hope to visit your neck of the woods....soon.
XOXO
Chica Luv

"Originally Posted by Dickhead
You might even have the potential to get to know a few women on a personal basis, and it might open your eyes"
....
So to keep this in a light-hearted spirit I will close with a joke:

Q: Why do the British drink warm beer?
A: Because they all have Lucas refrigerators.

[Sexwisher]

I'd like to put forth an idea of the morality, the value, of prostitution. ISG just might be an empathetic forum for this idea.

Prostitutes fulfill a desire to "feel loved," in the intimate ways, a desire felt by people who believe their needs are a great imposition on others. Prostitutes offer a simulacrum of "loving" for people who've given up on "finding love" in purely "social" terms. By renting access to their bodies, they get something they value (money) in exchange for something their clients value (sex). And they offer it with no strings attached ... play for pay ... on a cash basis. They give their clients something the clients can no longer find without paying for their play.

How many of us punters feel that way about sex and "love"? How many of us are mongering because we've given up "looking for love"? How many of us have come to the end of that road, and reached the conclusion that pay-for-play is the only way left for us to find the sweetness we've been dying for?

I woke up this morning with an insight that seems very fundamental, but it IS very uncomfortable: There's love that is giving, and love that is grasping. There's love that's expressed by fulfilling the other's needs, and there's love that's needy and grasping for one's needs to be fulfilled.

Wouldn't the ideal of love be one of trading? One of balance? One of filling the other's needs while the other fills your needs?

Seems to me that, in Western civilization, love has fallen into an imbalance. Too many women have reached the level of grasping all the guy has got, but scorning his needs - and tossing him aside when he has no more to give. To be fair, I have to acknowledge there are guys who grab all the "loving" (i.e. sexual favors) they can get, and discard their "used lovers" when they get attracted to a fresh target; and I also see the "rescuers" of both sexes, attracted by "fixing another's fatal flaws," the co-dependents of the world ... who get "taken," and then discarded, again and again and again.

Is it surprising when a man who has "given all he has to give," who has been bled dry and discarded, again and again, comes to a point where he won't do that any more? But who can he turn to when "Love" turns away?

AND YET: Prostitution is looked on with contempt - it's looked upon as "degrading." Paying for sex is looked on with special contempt, at the level of "How dare a man...?!" And the "paid player" is looked on, at best, as "the victim." (Cf: sexköpslagen, the Swedish "sex-buying" law.) What about the poor bastard who has been victimized, again and again, by the women to whom he's offered his love; who has reached the point where he'd rather pay cash for an hour's sweaty bed-bouncing companionship, than look for someone who's offering it "free" (but as bait)?

I ran into a very interesting phrase, about the sociology of sex work, on the "Border Thinking" web page of sociological maverick Laura Agustin:
Notice the implication of that last phrase - "{prostitution} must be considered violence against women."

It leaves us with "woman the eternal victim," and man "the eternal villain." And it leaves as helpless, not worthy of help, those poor souls who are left emotionally with "nothing left to give."

Basically, the prostitute gives us at least a taste of "the sweetness." And I hold that to be moral.

Any comments?

There is nothing more immoral than a society that considers prostitution immoral, and, even more, illegal. Because it kills the single market where some men can find these human experiences. This will force these men into deep depression due to lack of human experiences that enrich their life and define their place in the society. I call this to be beyond vileness. Fortunately, prostitution can't be eradicated even in these vile societies, but only in small cities with weak markets where prostitution vanishes due to the lack of cash flow and proper conditions. Therefore men will either adjust themselves in terms of cash and personality to the requirements of local women, leave the town for a better place to work, get payed and have sex, or ...buy larger hard drives and stand social obliteration... Condemning men to such a fate is the crime of the "moral" societies.

[Hebrides]

Rubber Nursey, Bango Chieto and others:

I hear ya.

It just amazes me that in 2010 there is still so much uptightness and condemnation towards human sexuality.

Here is one of my favorite quotes by H.L. Mencken:

"Puritanism is the haunting suspicion that someone, somewhere is having a good time..."

[Kattt]

Pathetic, isn't it. Instead of giving sexual equality to women, we're dragging men back down to our level.

Mind you, that's just one part of an overall backward shift in personal freedoms, across the board. We're seeing worldwide backflips on prostitution, pornography, condom promotion, sexual health education, contraception, abortion, HIV criminalisation, illicit drugs, gay rights, alcohol and cigarettes, no-fault divorce. We've got doctors promoting abstinence, governments funding "Christian Values" education in schools, feminists and organised religion joining forces against the sex industry.

It's an age-old political (and military) tactic to control the masses. Deprive them of physical/social release; make them stressed, downtrodden and needy; then fill the void with fear and loathing of a common enemy.

I wrote a fairly extensive college essay on Prostitution (for a female professor nonetheless, who gave me an A) I'm hardly an expert, but I play one on TV. There are multiple branches of feminism, but they're mainly divided into two categories.

Liberal feminism - These are the "gender equality" feminists. Basically, these are the feminists who typically believe that women should be as sexually open as men, and they often see prostitution and pornography as empowering to women, as it gives women control over their own sexuality and their own bodies.

Radical feminism - These are basically the "man-hating" feminists, who believe that women and men are at war, and that sex is man's way of maintaining domination over women. These are the nutjobs who have joined with the religious folk in order to bring sex back into the dark ages.

Many of the liberal feminist positions, I can see myself agreeing with wholeheartedly, such as equal pay for equal work, and full reproductive rights (abortion). The radical "men are dogs" feminists seem to be the ones influencing most of the policy lately, because (due to their alliance with the religious folk) they have large numbers, and draw in people from both sides of the political spectrum.

Anyway, just wanted to express my view that not all feminism is bad and anti-man. Just certain branches of it, and I give as much blame to the religious folk as I do to the radical feminists for the direction that things are heading.