Consenting to Sex

[Davidontour]

Given the current organised and well funded campaign against sex work, I thought it might be a good idea to put some of their favourite arguments up for discussion. I was thinking of perhaps posting one a day.

First up is an anonymous comment I read on a blog recently, but one which I've heard several times before:

''Buying a woman's consent to sex is no consent at all.''

Interested in your thoughts on this.

[Davidontour]

My personal view is that this is both patronising and hypocritical.

To assume that a sex worker (not necessarily a woman) is incapable of giving consent is an attitude beyond contempt. Many sex workers are highly intelligent, well educated and in many cases smarter and better adjusted than those criticising them. They have made a choice to be sex workers, sometimes full time, sometimes part time. Some have other jobs as well. No-one has the right to judge a particular group in society, particularly in such a patronising, stereotypical manner.

As for the consent to sex principle, who has the better consent option:

A heavily intoxicated woman on a night out who meets a random stranger and goes back to his house for meaningless and possibly unprotected sex.

A sex worker who can dictate time, place, fee and activities and has the option of refusing service before or during if they are not happy.

Looked at logically, I'd say there is a better case for policing nightclub encounters than those with sex workers.

[gamey27]

I think the thread is a good idea. The arguments for criminalising sex work are very repetitive, so it would be good to focus on each in turn and deal with fully. Often, when confronted with multiple arguments at once, it can be overwhelming and difficult to deal with each one individually.

As for "Buying a woman's consent to sex is no consent at all" This is a difficult line to argue against as it, at first, seems nonsensical or it is hard to see exactly what it is saying. The argument in full would be, I think, that women may be consenting to the sex, but if they're consenting to it in exchange for money, then it's not really consent. It's really a nonsensical statement, which makes it difficult to counter. It's like saying "A sheep produced by cloning is not really a sheep". Well, it is a sheep, by definition.

In any other area of life, "buying consent" is not considered a problem at all.

A more reasonable re-working of the statement (and perhaps an alternative interpretation/ meaning) might be "Buying a woman's consent to sex is not buying love", which I would agree with. Most people buying sex are aware of this though. Some people aren't and think they're getting something they're not, but that's their problem.

[gamey27]

As for the consent to sex principle, who has the better consent option:

A heavily intoxicated woman on a night out who meets a random stranger and goes back to his house for meaningless and possibly unprotected sex.

A sex worker who can dictate time, place, fee and activities and has the option of refusing service before or during if they are not happy.

Looked at logically, I'd say there is a better case for policing nightclub encounters than those with sex workers.

I agree with you on this point. There was a sex-buyer on Rupert Everett's documentary who made the point that two people being blind drunk having sex together is completely acceptable, yet buying sex sober is appalling to many/most

However, I would steer clear of these types of arguments when dealing with ant-sex work campaigners, as it's avoiding dealing with the issue of sex-work. Many will say "well, yes, drunken sexual encounters aren't a particularly good idea either, but that's an issue for another day". It still leaves the issue of sex work unresolved and I think in a debate setting, people only get a short amount of time, it's important to stick to the issue at hand instead of comparing it to other issues.

[gamey27]

Women who like to have a few drinks and frequent nightclubs seem to regularly get a hard time on this forum. Is it sour grapes?
Meaningless sex? Two people found each other attractive and wanted to fuck. Does there always need to be more to it than that?

I think the point he was making was about the intoxication really. There's nothing wrong with the mutual attracted people having meaningless sex. It's the fact that being drunk doesn't really put you in a good position to make decisions. However, it's their decision to get drunk.

[Davidontour]

Women who like to have a few drinks and frequent nightclubs seem to regularly get a hard time on this forum. Is it sour grapes?
Meaningless sex? Two people found each other attractive and wanted to fuck. Does there always need to be more to it than that?

No there doesn't and personally I've no problem with it. But it does present potential problems for some -- when people are drunk there may be a consent issue, STDs and even unwanted pregnancy can be issues. Many find it morally wrong and it can also have elements of deceit and result in one party being hurt emotionally afterwards.

My reason for bringing it up is that I see it as a situation similar to 'buying' sex, where two adults agree to no strings sex on the basis of finding each other vaguely attractive (something which often proves mistaken the next morning). But the abolitionists don't seem to have a problem with this type of behaviour and I would contend that a sex worker has more control over their situation than a woman in a drunken one night stand. Just my opinion.

[gamey27]

But the abolitionists don't seem to have a problem with this type of behaviour and I would contend that a sex worker has more control over their situation than a woman in a drunken one night stand. Just my opinion.

I would hazard a guess that many abolitionists probably do have a problem with no-strings sex. However, they're aware that they would never get public backing for, so they don't crusade against it. It's so widespread and out in the open that it's hard to judge people for it. Prostitution, however, is something most people don't think about much or aren't exposed to much, so it's easier to tell a few lies about it.

[bluefan1]

I agree with you on this point. There was a sex-buyer on Rupert Everett's documentary who made the point that two people being blind drunk having sex together is completely acceptable, yet buying sex sober is appalling to many/most

However, I would steer clear of these types of arguments when dealing with ant-sex work campaigners, as it's avoiding dealing with the issue of sex-work. Many will say "well, yes, drunken sexual encounters aren't a particularly good idea either, but that's an issue for another day". It still leaves the issue of sex work unresolved and I think in a debate setting, people only get a short amount of time, it's important to stick to the issue at hand instead of comparing it to other issues.

What he said....

And though I agree with OP's thesis I also would remind all sex-users that many escorts are not acting entirely of their own free will. Whether this be by dint if their personal/ economic situation or the nefarious actions of others such as pimps / traffickers. Of course one of the main reasons for this situation is the failure to legalise the sale of sex and therefore the criminal element will profit.

[Davidontour]

What he said....

And though I agree with OP's thesis I also would remind all sex-users that many escorts are not acting entirely of their own free will. Whether this be by dint if their personal/ economic situation or the nefarious actions of others such as pimps / traffickers. Of course one of the main reasons for this situation is the failure to legalise the sale of sex and therefore the criminal element will profit.

Are they any reliable Irish figures for numbers thought to be acting against their will? I've no doubt that some are, but would a figure of say 10% justify the criminalisation of the clients of the other 90%? Should the actions of organised criminals & traffickers not be primarily a case for the police?

[Curvaceous Kate]

What he said....

And though I agree with OP's thesis I also would remind all sex-users that many escorts are not acting entirely of their own free will. Whether this be by dint if their personal/ economic situation or the nefarious actions of others such as pimps / traffickers. Of course one of the main reasons for this situation is the failure to legalise the sale of sex and therefore the criminal element will profit.

I think the same can be said for many different jobs. Many people work in jobs they don't particularly like and would not choose to do if they could afford not to, but their situation means that they continue with the work until a better opportunity comes their way. Think of all those people that continually send out C.V.s for jobs while they are employed. They are not all doing it to 'better themselves', but because they find themselves in a job that is ill suited to them. Likely the same situation happens with Sex Work, but it doesn't make it a terrible situation or any worse than anyone else in a similar situation. They could choose to stop if they really wanted to, but have likely decided it is the better of the two choices to continue.