The feminist rationale for the end-demand model.

[Machjo]

Though I do favour the end-demand model, my reason for favouring it is not at all based on feminist theory. In fact, I find the feminist rationale for the end-demand model difficult to understand.

From my understanding, the feminist rationale is that prostitution consists of a man oppressing a woman. If we understand prostitution in that way, then a man buying sex from another man and a woman buying sex from a man or another woman are not engaging in prostitution since the feminist definition of prostitution  implicitly excludes such activities from the very definition of prostitution. In other words, paying for sex constitutes prostitution only when a man buys the sexual services of a woman. The rational extension of this into any law would logically lead to making it a criminal offence for a man to buy sex but not for a woman to do so; or if we considered any prostitution as consisting of the male oppression of women, then making it a criminal offence for a man to buy or sell sex but not for a woman to do so.

I don't see how such an understanding of prostitution can support the idea of making it a criminal offence for a person to buy sex since, if we consider prostitution as consisting of a man oppressing a woman, then a man who sells sex to a woman is in fact oppressing that woman and so prosecuting that woman would just victimize her again. As a result, while I do support the end-demand model, I think the feminist rationale fails to support it.

To ensure more congruence between the end-demand model and its supporting rationale, I'd formulate it as prostitution necessarily including a buyer abusing a provider and in some cases a seller abusing a buyer reciprocally. Since buying sex always constitutes abuse, it makes sense to make that a criminal offence. Since providing sexual services does not always do so, it might make more sense to regulate that. Such a redefinition would thus provide a more congruent rationale for making it a criminal offence for a person to buy sex and to regulate the sale of sexual services so as to deter a seller from abusing any potential buyer.

Otherwise, as long as we continue to define prostitution as the male oppression of women, people will continue to argue based on that rationale that we should legalize a man buying another man's or for a woman buying another's sexual services; and since the constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex without valid reason, any person buying another's services. As a result, the rationale that prostitution is the male oppression of women falls apart before the end-demand model that makes it a criminal offence even for a woman to buy another's sexual services.

[Guest]

I suppose the "end demand" model would do the same for women as a ban on abortion.  Drive the practice underground and put them at greater risk.

I prefer the "pro-choice" model.  Complete legalization and government oversight, including all OH&S regulations.  A pension plan too.

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I suppose the "end demand" model would do the same for women as a ban on abortion.  Drive the practice underground and put them at greater risk.

I prefer the "pro-choice" model.  Complete legalization and government oversight, including all OH&S regulations.  A pension plan too.

To my mind, buying sex reveals a compulsive sexuality disorder. So if I understand you correctly, if a woman buys sex, instead of helping her out of the industry, we should just make it easier for her to get her fix and so exacerbate the problem?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Machjo said:

To my mind, buying sex reveals a compulsive sexuality disorder. So if I understand you correctly, if a woman buys sex, instead of helping her out of the industry, we should just make it easier for her to get her fix and so exacerbate the problem?

You don't understand me at all.  And I would have to disagree with your assessment of buying sex as a compulsive sexuality disorder too.

[Machjo]

17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You don't understand me at all.  And I would have to disagree with your assessment of buying sex as a compulsive sexuality disorder too.

So you don't see anything pathological in a person paying for sex?

[Machjo]

‘We find that Mexican sex workers received a 23 percent premium for unprotected sex from clients who requested not to use a condom, and this premium jumped to 46 percent if the sex worker was considered very attractive. We also found that clients who requested condom use paid 9 percent more for protected sex, and sex workers who requested not to use a condom gave clients a 20 percent discount. These results are completely consistent with our theoretical predictions.’

 

http://manishashah.bol.ucla.edu/papers/shah_JPE.pdf

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Machjo said:

So you don't see anything pathological in a person paying for sex?

I don't see anything pathological about people paying for groceries, so why should sex be any different?  Both are good.

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I don't see anything pathological about people paying for groceries, so why should sex be any different?  Both are good.

Even when a buyer offers more money or a seller a discount for unprotected sex? You don't see anything compulsive in that at all?

[Guest]

Stupidity is as...   something or other from a movie.  Sex work has no monopoly on stupid.

[Machjo]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Stupidity is as...   something or other from a movie.  Sex work has no monopoly on stupid.

Stupid or compulsive? from that report, even Mexicans are well aware of the risk of HIV. Us studies have found customers offer more for unprotected sex too and there is evidence that even when the buyer is a woman, she will sometimes agree to unprotected sex so this cuts through all demographics with both buyers and sellers participating in a way that I would consider pathological.

[Machjo]

http://world.time.com/2013/10/15/ignorance-and-a-thriving-sex-industry-fuel-aids-explosion-on-bali/

There is an economic cost:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/costs-of-new-hiv-cases-will-top-4b-report-says-1.1109961

 

So if there is evidence that some buyers (and sometimes even sellers) suffer sex addiction, then it would seem to make sense, if we are not to criminalize it outright, to at least strictly regulate it comparably to how Singapore regulates its casinos to keep gambling addicts out for example.

[-1=e^ipi]

Legalize prostitution!

 

Give people freedom!

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Machjo said:

To my mind, buying sex reveals a compulsive sexuality disorder. So if I understand you correctly, if a woman buys sex, instead of helping her out of the industry, we should just make it easier for her to get her fix and so exacerbate the problem?

What kind of weird compulsion is it that focus' on preventing sex with government regulation?

Probably wouldn't be long until increasing numbers of men charged with doing something about people and the sex they have are being charged with....something sexually inappropriate - it seems to go with the territory, take the Catholic Church for example. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

Stupid or compulsive? from that report, even Mexicans are well aware of the risk of HIV. Us studies have found customers offer more for unprotected sex too and there is evidence that even when the buyer is a woman, she will sometimes agree to unprotected sex so this cuts through all demographics with both buyers and sellers participating in a way that I would consider pathological.

People who have sex without paying for it have it unprotected too.  I never saw the problem with condoms, myself.

People also do stupid risky things completely unrelated to sex.

Edited July 15, 2018 by bcsapper

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

People who have sex without paying for it have it unprotected too.  I never saw the problem with condoms, myself.

But people in a monogamous relationship pose less of a risk of spreading disease compared to the promiscuous, no?

I'm not judging people who buy sex here. I'm just saying that strict regulation could help them to better manage their compulsive behaviour to protect public health.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Machjo said:

But people in a monogamous relationship pose less of a risk of spreading disease compared to the promiscuous, no?

I'm not judging people who buy sex here. I'm just saying that strict regulation could help them to better manage their compulsive behaviour to protect public health.

Absolutely, and people who don't go in caves when the rains are coming pose less risk of getting trapped, but as I said earlier...

The only way to impose regulations is to legalize it completely. 

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Absolutely, and people who don't go in caves when the rains are coming pose less risk of getting trapped, but as I said earlier...

The only way to impose regulations is to legalize it completely. 

Hmmm... maybe I misunderstood you. Though i favour criminalizing the buying of sex, I am open to legalization with strict regulation especially on the advertising side of the business.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Hmmm... maybe I misunderstood you. Though i favour criminalizing the buying of sex, I am open to legalization with strict regulation especially on the advertising side of the business.

My basic position is that people ought to be able to do what they want with their bodies.  If they want to buy or sell sex, rent their womb or sell their kidney, I don't care.  It's their body.

I think if sex is to be sold legally, regulations would apply just the same as when anything else is sold.  Only the regulations themselves would vary.

Edited July 15, 2018 by bcsapper

[betsy]

On 7/14/2018 at 9:19 PM, bcsapper said:

My basic position is that people ought to be able to do what they want with their bodies.  If they want to buy or sell sex, rent their womb or sell their kidney, I don't care.  It's their body.

 

If your daughter wants to mutilate herself - or hang herself - or, keep doing drugs, you say you're not going to interfere?  It's her body, she can do what she wants with it?

Edited July 16, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

On 7/14/2018 at 9:10 PM, bcsapper said:

Absolutely, and people who don't go in caves when the rains are coming pose less risk of getting trapped, but as I said earlier...

 

Some people don't know that certain caves get flooded.  Or, certain amusement parks aren't alligator-free.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

If your daughter wants to mutilate herself - or hang herself - or, keep doing drugs, you say you're not going to interfere?  It's her body, she can do what she wants with it?

I'm not going to tell you and everyone else what to do based on how I feel about my daughter.  Both my daughters are adults, so they can decide what to do.  I would look to have an advisory capacity, of course, but I wouldn't kidnap them.  As for the hanging bit, if we had full on doctor assisted suicide there'd be no need for hanging.  

[betsy]

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not going to tell you and everyone else what to do based on how I feel about my daughter.  Both my daughters are adults, so they can decide what to do. 

No, we're talking about how you'd react with your daughter(s) - basing it on your "philosophy" that they can do whatever they want with their body!  I'm assuming you'll go by what you believe how it should be, right?  They can do whatever they want with their bodies.

So, if they shot up heroin in front of you.....that's okay with you.  I'm assuming that, of course.

 

 

Quote

I would look to have an advisory capacity, of course, but I wouldn't kidnap them

Lol.  I'm picturing this:   your daughter is so disraught,  she's getting ready to kill herself, and you're pleading, "listen to me sweetheart......you wanna hear my advice? Say yes!   Say yes, please hon.    Say  you want my advice!  WAIT! WAIT! Listen to me! " 

 

 

Quote

 

As for the hanging bit, if we had full on doctor assisted suicide there'd be no need for hanging.  

 

 

 

continuation:

So, sweetie you wanna end it, I can see that.   Let's go to a doctor for an assisted suicide, okay?   less messy that way." 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

  Both my daughters are adults, so they can decide what to do.  I would look to have an advisory capacity, of course, but I wouldn't kidnap them.

If your daughters are under the spell of a charismatic pimp (who supply them their drugs) - and they're going a-whoring for him - you won't try to get them away from that guy?   You'll just throw your hands up in the air and just say, "well, they're both adults, so they can decide what to do."

 

I suppose, it'll be a consolation knowing that prostitution is legal, at least. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by betsy

[Machjo]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

If your daughters are under the spell of a charismatic pimp (who supply them their drugs) - and they're going a-whoring for him - you won't try to get them away from that guy?   You'll just throw your hands up in the air and just say, "well, they're both adults, so they can decide what to do."

 

I suppose, it'll be a consolation knowing that prostitution is legal, at least. 

I like your thinking. Whatever the sex of the buyer or the provider, buying sex hurts everyone involved, buyer and provider alike. I don't usually link to feminist writing, but Julie Bindel has written a good piece on the subject here:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/aug/09/comment.gender

[Guest]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

If your daughters are under the spell of a charismatic pimp (who supply them their drugs) - and they're going a-whoring for him - you won't try to get them away from that guy?   You'll just throw your hands up in the air and just say, "well, they're both adults, so they can decide what to do."

 

I suppose, it'll be a consolation knowing that prostitution is legal, at least. 

I'd probably beat the living daylights out of him.  But so what?  You seem to be being deliberately obtuse.  I'm talking about the rights of individuals within the law. (As in, change the law to give them the rights) You should understand what I'm saying.  You wouldn't have an abortion, or enter into a homosexual relationship, but you wouldn't try and stop someone else from doing so, would you? 

(If you would, the conversation can end here) 

However, you would be completely within your rights to try and talk someone out of doing something, if you were related to them, or a friend, say.  Of course, if they are an adult, they can tell you to go sling your hook.  It's their body, not yours.  I understand that some religious people think it belongs to God, and that can cause problems, because it doesn't.  I don't know if you are one of those.

In the end, regardless of my views, any relative of mine will make their own choice.

Edited July 17, 2018 by bcsapper