I have been converted by the arguments of the antifeminists, that
the feminist movement’s main goal is to reduce male choice in female partners, to force men to dedicate their lives to unattractive, high spending, ruinously expensive feminist sex partners.
I add to this my hypothesis
The balance of power between men and women tilted in favor of women because
- Men mostly stopped using physical & economical power,
- women maintained their superior social manipulation power and thus,
- world-wide, women are biasing laws totally in their favor in clear detriment of men
In evolutionary times (EEA, environment of evolutionary adaptedness), males had superior physical strength, fighting skills, and economical power as meat providing hunters.
Females, to defend their interest, had to use social skills, social manipulation, shaming, intrigue, cunningness trying to counter male physical superiority (anyone got research links on that?)
Now males surrendered the advantages of physical strength, even of economic strength. Suddenly, in the last half century, in the male-female conflicts of interest, all the female agendas win in politics. Feminists hide their agenda behind absurd warped arguments, shaming, willful misuse of language,
Feminists argue that prostitution is dangerous, unhealty, unpleasant, demeaning, not a free choice. These arguments that can be brought against menial jobs, professional boxing, military service. Personally, I think that spending one’s life fixing up people’s teeth, staring into smelly mouths all day long, is demeaning. And going to a war that one is opposed to, this is like a year long repeated rape.
It is amazing with what kind of dis-information feminists get away with. I will analyze a frminists views about prostitution from a Wikipedia text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution#Coercion_and_poverty
Feminist argument |
Absurdity of feminist argumentation |
| Many feminists are strongly opposed to prostitution, as they see the practice as a form of violence against women, which should not be tolerated by society [...] | Many men are strongly opposed to military service, as they see this practice as a form of violence against men, which should not be tolerated by society.
Military service often is involuntary, and desertion punished by execution. |
| These feminists argue that, in most cases, prostitution is not a conscious and calculated choice. | {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing, military service} in most cases, are not a conscious and calculated choice. Getting a husband that pays spousal support for the rest of his life is a much better choice. |
| Most women who become prostitutes do so because they were forced or coerced by a pimp or by human trafficking, or, when it is an independent decision, it is generally the result of extreme poverty and lack of opportunity, or of serious underlying problems, such as drug addiction, past trauma (especially child sexual abuse) and other unfortunate circumstances. | {Panhandling and begging,robbing} may be caused by childhood traumas, abuse, drug addiction. {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing} are usually the result of extreme poverty or caused by unfortunate circumstances.
Furthermore, feminists simply deny the existence of cases of rich well off prostitutes. See “Belle de Jour”: Cancer Scientist financed Doctorate with Prostitution Work |
| These feminists point out that women from the lowest socioeconomic classes—impoverished women, women with a low level of education, women from the most disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities—are overrepresented in prostitution all over the world. | Let us point out that women/men from the lowest socioeconomic classes—impoverished women/men, women/men with a low level of education, women/men from the most disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities—are overrepresented in {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, military service, panhandling, begging, robbing} all over the world. |
| “If prostitution is a free choice, why are the women with the fewest choices the ones most often found doing it?” (MacKinnon, 1993)[9 | "If {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, military service, panhandling, begging, robbing} is a free choice, why are the women/men with the fewest choices the ones most often found doing it?" (MacKinnon, 1993)[9
why do feminists get away with such drivel and even get academic recognition? Even men kind of buy this ridiculous feminist BS. |
| Most prostitutes are in a very difficult period of their lives and most want to leave this occupation. | Most {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing} professionals are in a very difficult period of their lives and most want to leave this occupation. Except highly successful professional boxers, and highly successful prostitutes, whose existence the feminists duly ignore. |
| Catharine MacKinnon argues that "In prostitution, women have sex with men they would never otherwise have sex with. | We argue that "In {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing} , women/men clean streets they otherwise never would clean, fight men they otherwise would not fight. |
| The money thus acts as a form of force, not as a measure of consent. It acts like physical force does in rape." [11] | The money thus acts as a form of force, not as a measure of consent. It acts like physical force does in slavery.” |
| Anti-prostitution feminists argue that prostitution is a practice which leads to serious negative long term effects for the prostitutes, such as severe trauma, stress, depression, anxiety, self medication through alcohol and drug abuse, eating disorders and a greater risk for self harm and suicide | Prize fighting, boxing, heading a ball in soccer leads to serious long term health effects, potential brain damage. Being a high executive, manager, causes severe long term consequences like stress, heart attack, obesity. |
It is amazing how feminist women get away with manipulating language, distorting facts, and got their agenda all the way up to the United Nations. And thanks to their deceitful language most men somehow get swayed by their warped arguments.
Term |
common definition |
feminist extension & re-definition |
provocative re-definition |
| victim | somebody or something harmed; somebody duped | $ 400 an hour luxury prostitute “victims”, that earn much more then most of their customers | the prostitute’s customer is the victim of his raging hormones that make him spend too much money |
| selling a body | sale is a final one time transaction that changes ownership. Like selling into slavery. | “sale” is a one hour “rental” to provide an hour of sexual services. | A construction helper sells his body for money in exchange for often unhealthy work; a fire fighter, a soldier, a full contact figher sells his body, risiking his health and his life.
A journalist, physician, engineer sells his brain to provide services to people. |
| violence against women | an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt. … |
exchanging sex for money by mutual agreement (is violence against women).
A woman that pays money to put up an ad offering sexual services. If you answer the ad you are violent against the woman. |
obviously, drafting a non-volunteer soldier for war is violence against men;
obviously, a firefighter who sells his body to pull people out of burning houses is violence against men; by feminist definition, even a construction worker who sells his body to lug wood and cement, is suffering violence, because he would rather be at the beach or receive welfare. |
Am I the only one that is lost why people buy this BS, why they have offer academic carreers to such manipulative, cunning, deceiving, misleading and totally illogical people?
Why they influence even United Nation Policy?
Why are men stupid enough to let themselves be lead astray by such arguments? Seems women really have more verbal intelligence then men.
I rest my case.
#1 by DriverBy on 06:09 PM - 06:09 PM
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
3
Interesting post. Protistution is one of my favourite subjects. The only place where I might, just might give some credence is where women are incarcerated by force. In an ideal world the law would deal with this.
But, this leads on to my differentiation analysis in the world of prostitution:
Level 1: Glam – ‘High class Escorts’, independent, professional, openly defiant about independence (but also identity protective), ‘liberated’ indidviduals.
Level 2: Middle class – students making a buck for study, most come from fairly well-to-do backgrounds, no real trauma, or are lazy, resigned from mundane 9-5 work and looking for immediate comsumerist gratification. Also amatuer porn-stars.
Level 3: The ‘dark side’ – incarceration, drugs, hellholes, a layer of society you wished never existed. but not to forget women are also complicit in the gang construction of these affairs.
You would think the ‘glam side’ is in no way related to the ‘dark side’, but it is. Remember, the glam side is educated women who know how to sell sex. They are adept sellers but more worringly so is how they use the darker strata as a marketing ploy to sell their wares, e.g., ‘Why have a brothel experience when you can have me’. They use their own disadvantaged sisters, to create repulsion, to attract custom. Sick. And you would have thought with all the privileges of education these professional women have received, the first thing they would have done out of college is help their own sisters. No chance, they let their incarcerated sisters rot and go straight for the money. The double standard of women.
Women are also complicit in their own sexualisation but refuse to admit this, then cry sexual-harassment, etc, when it suits them. Er, wasn’t it you that contributed to the whole sexual imagery of women by exposing yourself as a submissive, accommodating creature? Men probably only showed you a bit of attention and now you get all angry? Tut, tut, don’t take out your prostituted frustrations on some unsuspecting dude.
Finally, about this ‘we must stop the ‘demand’ for sex, etc’ political BS. for me, a ‘demand’ has to be ‘created’.
Women shove sex in your face (that’s all they have to sell) therefore creating the demand, the same way they advertise sex. It is the glam side who advertise sex so cunningly and adeptly. The trickle down effect is men cannot afford $500 dollar hookers so they’ll go lower, and lower and end up somewhere. At the same time at this point men are duped into thinking a woman is safe and free from exploitation. Why the law refuses to recognise deception is baffling.
Prostitution in general is as much an exploitation of mans senses as it is a supposed exploitation of a woman’s body.
Don’t forget, women are active in the organisation of hellhole domains, exploiting their sisters via many channels, from up above, or down below. There is a link, either through exploitive advertising or deception and complicitness.
#2 by Stu on 09:27 AM - 09:27 AM
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
2
There was a woman working where work…..in a warehouse….doing basic warehouse stuff. She found out I run sex parties and approached me and really really wanted to come and get gang banged. Our party is for 35yo or older only so I had to refuse her. A few months later she told me she was leaving work……to go and work in a brothel……and she sort of rubbed my nose in it that she couldn’t qualify for my……free parties……now she is going to be getting all the sex with all the men in the world and getting paid heaps for it as well…….she was over the moon. She is now making about 5 times as much as she was slaving away in the warehouse……and all while spending most of her time slobbing around in slutty attire waiting for the next punter……and then spending most of that time on her back. She thinks it an incredible joke that men come and pay her……for giving her pleasure…….laughs her head off about it.
Moto of the story…..prostitution is easy money for women…….that is all it is. Most women maybe would rather work in an air con cushy office job getting paid 100kpa for doing sweat bugger all…….but if they had to work doing similair work to most men…….blue collar boring exhausting work…..they would take the hooker job. But even better would be to marry a high earning man…….then get paid for denying him sex…….all while he works around the clock leaving plenty of time for her to hook up with toy boys.
#3 by Bill Jones on 08:46 PM - 08:46 PM
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
#4 by admin on 05:09 PM - 05:09 PM
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Did you not read my “Belle de Jour”: Cancer Scientist financed Doctorate with Prostitution Work? Probably more women like to work as prostitutes then as toilet cleaners.
More about this here too
Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked
#5 by Stephen Pratt on 10:43 AM - 10:43 AM
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
You know, I really enjoyed the read, and I agree with it 100%.
However, I’m torn in “Legalizing” prostitution, I totally agree that woman should have the right to do what they want with their bodies (As long as it is the woman herself that is pulling the strings and not a pimp/trafficker, etc)
The down side I see to it would actually be on the Consumer’s side.
Right now.. it’s very “hush hush” and woman legally cannot spell out a menu for the consumer so they have to work for “tips”.
So if it became legal, woman can now just spell it out right “$40 for a BJ, $100 nudity, $200 for out right sex, etc..
While it is “hush hush” the girls work as escorts and have an agency fee and the Johns are a little more in control saying “I think you were worth $X on top of the agency fee” and can pay what HE thinks she is worth in tips vs just paying for it up front and out right.
I would much rather see it legalized, but I can see a benefit to it not being legalized as well.
#6 by admin on 02:16 AM - 02:16 AM
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
@Stephen Pratt:
Illegality drives up prices. Pot is Grass and should cost $ 100 a truckload, if it were legal. Sex, if freely available, also should be cheaper then it is now, illegally. Of course, there could be partial legalization that keeps competition at bay (like mandatory registration of prostitutes).
But most men would rather pay more then risk jail.
But yes, of course it should be analyzed if there is a public health or men’s psychological intererst in having cheap sexual outlets available. Would not get much support, though ……
#7 by Anon on 01:01 PM - 01:01 PM
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
#8 by admin on 07:31 PM - 07:31 PM
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Please put up 10 links to pro-prostitution feminist blogs or articles. Real pro-prostitution activists.
Show me in the feminist blogs against prostitution, how a large portion of their readers contradict them forcibly, defending freedom of prostitution.
Also please help how to evaluate the percentage of pro-prostitution proponents and opponents.
#9 by Normajeana on 06:22 PM - 06:22 PM
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
As a long time (29 years) sex worker rights activist (and retired sex worker), I have seen the unfortunate swing to the radical feminist position on sex work- disallowing the voice of the non- victim sex worker because we are being duped by men. I’d LOVE to know that it is finally going back to the ‘my body, my choice’ philosophy in the feminist movement. Please do share the feminist websites (aside from the websites of us sex workers and sex worker rights activists) who are pro prostitution/ sex worker rights.
#10 by Anon on 01:03 PM - 01:03 PM
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
3
“Prostitution in general is as much an exploitation of mans senses as it is a supposed exploitation of a woman’s body.”
Yes. THIS is a sensical debunking of the feminist paradigm on prostitution. “Make it legal, the let market decide” is not (that argument is actually adopted BY the feminists).
#11 by admin on 03:10 AM - 03:10 AM
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
there is a pro-prostitution argument in feminism. It is pretty powerless. Who makes the laws, who pickets beauty contests, who influences United Nations recommendations? Who fuels the “sex trafficing” craze with its enormous exaggerations? Any loud feminist voices counter-picketing? Crying loud to change back the laws? Defending prostitution customers in Sweden? They are a powerless, fairly quiet, minority.
I wish you were right! Feel free to post 10 links to such feminist pro-prostitution sites. Post another 10 links showing such activists petitioning liberation of prostitution and scrapping anti-prostitution laws.
#12 by Jim Taddeo on 07:47 PM - 07:47 PM
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
#13 by Bill Jones on 08:42 PM - 08:42 PM
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
#14 by Maxwell on 07:29 AM - 07:29 AM
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
1
This article is very well presented. And it succinctly puts forward the major arguements of the day for proponents of the “violence against women” bandwagon.
What I really find manipulative is how women can cry foul about prostitution and yet their own nature seems to want to sexualise themselves once reaching legal age. This duality in womens fuzzy logic is what muddy’s the waters so to speak. On the one hand women want to feel empowered and toy with a mans basic instinct to desire them. They are aware of their power to manipulate men and also understand that they alone can curb prostitution at least where 1st world and 2nd world prostitution exists..all it takes is for them to stop participating in the sex trade.
However they will later argue that a woman can choose how she sees fit to earn a living. Come on now, you either side with prostitution in all its unflattering colors or you don’t. If feminists are going to pick and choose hypocrisies then the debate will never end.
An enlightened woman or society would never allow prostitution. Because it would never allow money to be the enslaver of whole societies. Things in a progressive society would be free. There would be alot of participation across the globe for science to be at the forefront. And many mundane jobs would be automated out of existence. Therefore freeing people to take to the arts or science with much gusto. Because everyone would be provided with the essentials (food, health, shelter, education) there would be no need to pursue a materialistic lifestyle. Things would just happen for the betterment of all. And so if prostitution were to survive under these new conditions. It would not be prostitution anymore, but rather just recreational sex. And for that there would be no real pressure to participate in.
Unfortunately society as it stands today, will continually struggle with this problem of what came 1st, the chicken or the egg (as in prostitutes creating a service which in part allowed men to follow them in droves, or that mens craving for women began or forced women into considering this poor choice in profession) The jury may be still out for this one. But in my mind its quite simple… women as any opportunistic individual, made lemonade out of lemons and are more often than not complicit in their own game.
#15 by admin on 07:15 PM - 07:15 PM
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
there are many men that simply never get laid. Unless if you make women much much more sexually liberal and make women have mercy on loners, misfits, geeks etc. So will your society make sure these men at least get sex occasionally, so they will not remain eternal virgins, a fate that is very unpleasant for men.
And then are all the other men that can get sex but that always want more sex. Will sex be available to them for free, so they can be happy?
> mens craving for women began or forced women into considering this poor choice in profession
a) what makes you think this is a poor choice? Let the woman choose
b) women’s cravings for money, food, status might make them choose that profession. It seems that, like in other barters and exchange, buyer and seller are happy with the business. If no do good feminists interfere and arrest both.
Some women choose the profession to meet high status men that can afford their high prices. Or to make money much more easily then toiling as a secretary for a tenth of the income.
#16 by Bill Jones on 08:35 PM - 08:35 PM
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
#17 by Johannes on 09:32 AM - 09:32 AM
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Nice ad hominem and shaming language.
#18 by admin on 06:55 PM - 06:55 PM
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
can’t you leave that to the person?
If she prefers to service several men, or if she prefers to clean several toilets.
Who are you think that you jail women to protect them from their own decisions?
Or if she is a luxury prostitute who serves only one man per week? Why would you want to jail her for her own protection.
#19 by josie on 01:51 PM - 01:51 PM
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
so by arguing that prostitution is similar to panhandling (i don’t see much of a similarity, panhandlers are rarely forced into their occupation at a young age with threats of violence) and citing people who have financed education though prostituting, perhaps panhandling should be allowed (its also illegal in many states) and maybe even encouraged as a way to make money. let’s try eliminating both of these ways of life, and promote healthy occupations that children today can aspire to grow to be proud of.
#20 by admin on 08:38 PM - 08:38 PM
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
So harvesting, and working in clothing factories is something children are forced to doing at a young age, with threats of getting spanked. So we should shut down clothing factories and scrap agriculture.
That is what you say about prostitution. This is the feminist dishonesty. Make sure no children and no forced people are in prostitution.
Open it up for volunteers. Support all those who do prostitution willingly. Give 2 year visa to foreign young women who want to engage in legal prostitution.
Panhandling is a bad example, because they are leeches, who produce nothing. Prostitutes produce happiness in their clients, sexual satisfaction, a wholesome outlet for sexual urges that otherwise could go into violent rape.
#21 by Jim T on 07:29 PM - 07:29 PM
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Oh, and DriverBy is one of the most spineless posters I’ve ever read.
You look like fools, guys. Except, of course, to all the losers-at-life giving you fist pumps for making them feel better about themselves. Even if it’s delusion.
#22 by Jim T on 07:42 PM - 07:42 PM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
whoops, sorry DriverBy, Copied-and-pasted the wrong name. I meant that “spineless poster” comment to go to Stu. X-(~
#23 by Webe on 04:33 AM - 04:33 AM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Most men do not want their daughters to become cleaning ladies, but they want them to become prostitutes even less. I agree with the gist of the argument, but there is still a reason why most fathers do no want their daughters to become prostitutes. That has not yet been addressed here, and it has more substance than an irrational taboo.
#24 by admin on 06:45 AM - 06:45 AM
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
You are welcome to address this. Write about it here.
I have seen mothers in Asia who were satisfied with their daughters being prostitutes and making huge amounts of money.
Part of the reason is social ostracism and taboo. If prostitution were legalized, clean, devoid of abuse, exploitation, drugs and other problems, it could well be a quite accepted profession. Also, part time prostitution, like college girls, Japanese school girls etc could be fairly acceptable.
Of course, there are biological evolutionary aspects to revulsion to extramarital sex in general. Most of them have to do with pregnancy, out of wedlock children, and lack of paternal certainty. All valid 2000 years ago, but no under technological control.
#25 by jane on 02:21 AM - 02:21 AM
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I think most feminists who are against prostitution and against women staying home while their husbands or boyfriends work are just unattractive and not feminine. I say this from personal experience. All my boyfriends, since I was around 21, have supported me to some extent. Does it make me a prostitute that I choose to enter relationships with men who are able and willing to help me financially, as well as pay for dates and gifts? No. But that is what prostitution is essentially – sex in exchange for material gain. Historically, practically all romantic male-female relationships were like this: the female provided sex, the male provided some sort of financial support or other material compensation, EVEN if it was just dinner. If a man pays for a dinner, and the woman has sex with him, on a certain level, that is prostitution too. I’m not trying to equate normal relationships with prostitution, but I am making the point that this dynamic will always be present in romantic male-female relationships – even if the man and woman are madly in love with each other. So for feminists to be up in arms against non-coerced prostitution is illogical on their part, unless they are suggesting that in conventional relationships the woman should support the man as well as having sex with him. Or that the man should support the woman without them having sex. Or the woman and man should always pay for their respective parts only, and still have sex with each other. The last example would mean that if there is a married couple where the man makes a million a year and the woman 36,000, the woman should pay rent to the man, pay for half of all utility, grocery, and household bills, pay for her clothes, cosmetics, etc. with her money. Accepting anything from the man would be prostitution. But of course, the types of people who fall into feminism these days aren’t usually the logical types. Nor are they particularly feminine, soft, or attractive. The feminist types often are the ones getting drunk on cheap wine whilst watching sex and the city reruns, after which they plot with other feminists on how to strong-arm their broke, pothead, cheating boyfriends into committing to long-term monogamous relationships with them. Some female empowerment, huh? Sometimes, you just can’t fight nature.