I do agee with some of what you are saying but how do you view male prostitution?  Male on male and then the male escort for the affluent female?  There are many facets to prostitution and not always degrading. 

 +1

I agree. And the idea that sexuality cannot be sold? Why not? Why can I sell my thoughts or get paid for working in a factory, or get paid for having a beautiful voice, but then when I decide I want to make money from my sexual ´expertise´, it suddenly is unexcusable? I really don´t see why. It sort of sounds like sex is something holy and that women should understand it as such. And thinking of it that way sounds either religious or patriarchal ´woman needs to stay virgin till marriage´.

And you forget that there are also men selling themselves.

Trudy, do not label me as "feministic" please. These are my views that simply stem from logic and humanity. If a job can put you at risk of being killed, brutalized, get serious diseases, you do not say "oh, but some people don´t get killed in this job", right? Why is it that you consider prostitution as a normal ´job´, but you have no concern for the hazards of it? Where do you think these hazards come from? These hazards in fact are part of what the johns are buying here. And you are completely ignoring the larger context, you are talking exactly like slavery supporters did back in the day.

I don´t know enough about male on male escorts to comment about it.

First: I DO see the hazards, that´s why I support a union for women that have choosen the job themselves. Views like yours make that this job will never be accepted so dangers will always be there. Besides, if dangers make a job unacceptable, I know many more jobs that are.

Second: Thanks for calling me a slavery supporter.

Third: Your own quote from a couple of weeks back about you being a feminist was:

First: you do not see the fact taht what johns are buying IS domination and all the things that pose risk to the women. Even if you make a union for women, it will not eliminate the root of the problem, it will only make it worse.

Second: I apologize if my comment came across as calling you a slavery supporter. What I meant is that your reasoning is similar to those of slavery supporters, which is basically -- rationalization.

Third: I call myself a feminist and feminism supporter, but you don´t know what my views are and how I define my feminism. I don´t like you calling my views ´feministic´ because you are making feminism a divisive issue by doing this, and you are discarding my arguments by labeling it in a way that will turn off many people from engaging in a conversation. This conversation has nothing to do with the feminist ideology or feminist theory, it is simply a conversation about humanity, society and equality in it. So please, stay away from labeling me.

I don´t KNOW, that´s true. Though I have the idea you define your ´feminism´ in a way that suits you and only when you like it. Labeling? Sorry, I was only using my freedom of speech and opinion.

 No I don´t see how a john buys domination from a woman if she is willing to spread her legs as long as he pays. Where exactly is the domination? The domination is there when your definition of female sexuality involves male domination.

Like I said before: why can I sell my voice on a cd, but if I want to sell my body it´s unexcusable?

 Very well said!

well... what is it that you are trying to say here dear Trudy? nothing constructive I´m afraid, nothing contributory. go ahead and use your freedom of speech the way you want, I just won´t bother replying.

Ok, DK you just proved your ignorance of the issue. There are many reasons why these women ´spread their legs´ and many reasons why a man might want to purchase that, one of them is a very degrading towards women perception of human sexuality that´s based on domination and banging a woman who is in pain while he´s doing that.

Please, how can you compare selling your sexuality to selling your talent and creativity and self realization?