The war on prostitution is a war on men

There is no doubt by now that laws against prositution are motivated by feminist hatred of and distain for men.

Being that the vast majority of prostitution is men paying women for sexual activity and the fact that moral conservatives no longer have the political clout to outlaw any other traditionally immoral sexual activity between consenting adults, it would surely seem confusing and perplexing why this one act between consenting adults is not only still illegal in most countries but that the overall trend in the past decade is away from legalization and toward even more draconian and repressive laws in some of the most "liberal" countries in the world such as Sweden, Norway, etc. What else could be motivating it besides a war on men, and heterosexual men in particular.

Here is an interesting perspective I stumbled on, I don't think this guy's points can be seriously denied:

http://www.harrietharmansucks.com/hhAll_Men_Presumed_Guilty.htm

...But he is wrong to believe that these feminist-inspired Swedish laws were designed to reduce prostitution in order to protect 'vulnerable women'; because 'protecting vulnerable women' was never what these feminist laws were about.

Feminists couldn't give a damn about 'vulnerable women'. Indeed, without a continual supply of 'vulnerable women' feminists would lose much of their reason to exist, and the bulk of their self-serving propaganda would cease to be effective. As far as feminists are concerned, the more 'vulnerable women', the better.

(Indeed, the idea that Harriet Harman cares about 'vulnerable women' - having been responsible for killing, maiming and ruining the lives of thousands of them in Iraq - is risible. Similarly, the idea that she cares about 'vulnerable women' prostitutes when it is she, herself, who has brought thousands of young women into prostitution - via her continued promotion of family breakdown - is laughable. Harriet Harman couldn't give a hoot about vulnerable women. Harriet Harman cares about one person, and one person alone. Herself.)

These new prostitution laws - just like the various other laws to do with 'abuse' (rape, sex-assault etc) - are purposely designed to break apart as much as possible the relationships between men, women and children. This is their real aim.

And, in essence, this is how they work.

1. Make any situations wherein men and women relate to each other so ambiguous - legally speaking - that thousands of men are likely to find themselves in a position where they can easily be accused of having crossed some thoroughly ill-defined line.

2. Allow men to be prosecuted for having crossed this line even when there is no objective evidence that they have done so. Allegations alone will do.

3. Offer women numerous incentives to make such allegations - and ensure that those women who make false allegations are unlikely to suffer any significant consequence.

4. Encourage the media to publicise the names of men against whom any accusations have been made - and make it a criminal offence to publicise the names of the accusers.

The aims are as follows.

1. To discourage men from relating too closely to women.

2. To encourage women (and, indeed, men) to see all men as abusers.

3. To encourage women to make accusations of abuse...

Click to expand...

When you read about the debates regarding prostitution today in country after country, it always comes down to a debate between feminists on the one side saying it should be legalized to "improve the plight of women [meaning the hookers]" vs. "it should be outlawed because its abuse of women [meaning the hookers]" on the other. The needs, wants or interests of men in the discussion are not ever even raised or mentioned at all! Now, even more insidious and outrageous is the new trend toward decriminalizing the selling of sex while making or keeping it illegal to purchase it. Get it folks? Only the man can be the criminal here because we all know what evil monsters they are who simply want to abuse these poor women who have been forced or coerced into this victimizing lifestyle.

While I am sure there is a very very small number of prostitutes who are coerced into it with no volition on their part, and to be sure, many street hookers face bad working conditions, and that a very few Johns are violent or abusive, but the idea that this represents the situation of the vast majority of prostitutes is absurd. Its simply not the reality, any more than most strippers are forced to work in strip clubs. Its simply not reality despite what the feminist "abolitionists" want the public to believe. It is, in short, a lie.

The real motivation is the fact that readily available and reasonably priced prostitution would undercut the upper hand that women now hold in relationships with men and in society at large. The question is how long will men sit back & put up with more laws like the "Swedish model" that abolitionist feminazi's are actively trying to export to other countries? Its nothing short than a war on men, even those who would never consider going to a prositute themselves. There is no end to the direction they can go with this, as marriage itself could eventually, and not unreasonably, be interpreted as a form of longterm prostitution.

Men awake, you've got nothing to loose but your chains. The time is now to finally say something and organize against this before its too late. Stop the "Swedish model" before its too late!

Here's more on the lie of an epidemic of sex trafficking:

http://www.angryharry.com/reHappyhookersofEasternEurope.htm

Prostitution laws by country

Here's a chart. While New Zealand has legalized it in the past decade, much of the rest of the world, indeed many "liberal" countries are amazingly going the other way, often with draconian new laws aimed ONLY at the Johns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_by_country

Is going after the John only, not akin to going after a recreational drug user and ignoring the drug dealer? We don't do that with drugs so why would we do it with prostitution?

What does any of that have to do with colour?

Quoll said:

What does any of that have to do with colour?

Click to expand...

Not sure what this post is supposed to mean.

renard_ruse said:

There is no doubt by now that laws against prositution are motivated by feminist hatred of and distain for men.

Click to expand...

renard_ruse said:

Not sure what this post is supposed to mean.

Click to expand...

To "discolour or stain", that makes no sense in the context of your post.

Quoll said:

To "discolour or stain", that makes no sense in the context of your post.

Click to expand...

How funny, ha ha. The spelling police are here. Oh joy.

Best way to bust prostitution is to go after the nice married Johns, cuff 'em, finger print 'em, record 'em and then release their names to the local newspaper. Problem solved.

I'm totally against legalized prostitution because it corrupts impoverished men into pimping their women and because impoverished young women will be forced by legally-approved institutions into becoming whores rather that getting an education or working hard some other way to advance their social status.

Keep it illegal and the wages (and thrills) will remain far greater for the few involved, while the number of people whose lives are trashed will be kept to a minimum.

Sex wants to be free.

Firstly Renard, not all feminists feel this way. There is a group of feminists called sex positive feminists who are not anti men and are pro sexual expression.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

Prostitution is conditionally legal in Australia (not unlike Nevada). I am a feminist and a big fan of legalised prostitution. I think it's a business, all be it an old one (not the oldest, as one wise arse author pointed out, the oldest being flint napper). Legalisation improves control. The girls and guys can unionize and resist exploitation. They can force johns to wear condoms. Making it illegal is not going to stop it but instead drive it under ground and make it more dangerous.

I'm with Rose on this. Think about it for the U.S. alone...

Legalize prostitution. Control it. ALL participants tested and required to carry a license. Tax it.

Do the same with marijuana. Tax it like cigarettes.

I bet you that our $14 trillion deficit will disappear within 20 years.

Toontweeker said:

I'm with Rose on this. Think about it for the U.S. alone...

Legalize prostitution. Control it. ALL participants tested and required to carry a license. Tax it.

Do the same with marijuana. Tax it like cigarettes.

I bet you that our $14 trillion deficit will disappear within 20 years.

Click to expand...

I agree. Legalising it would also remove the mystique factor too. I am not a pot smoker but I think it should be legalised. Marijuana is associated with psychosis in users but at lower rates. I would imagine the number of people who have drunk themselves into substantial bran damage is considerably higher.

True, there's a pseudo feminist rhetoric in the debate around prostitution, and in many places that influences the law. But it's really just a lot of talk.

The other more prevalent reason behind outlawing prositution (or in Sweden's case, paying for it, but it's the same result) is the same as outlawing drugs. It's not the sex and the drugs themselves. If everyone engaged in it of their own free will and knew how to handle it, then there wouldn't be a problem. As it is, there are complications with drug use (addiction) and sex trade (coercion, pimping, trafficking) that lawmakers feel outweighs the right to indivuidual choices.

I disagree. Some things in life are difficult. But if we compromise important principles because some things are difficult, we lose. There are ways to deal with the negative sides of both drugs and prostitution. But it takes some straight talk, some real changes and some political balls.

Nobody wants to be known as the "pro whores and drugs" candidate... as much as that would appeal to a limited set of voters.

Liar said:

True, there's a pseudo feminist rhetoric in the debate around prostitution, and in many places that influences the law. But it's really just a lot of talk.

The other more prevalent reason behind outlawing prositution (or in Sweden's case, paying for it, but it's the same result) is the same as outlawing drugs. It's not the sex and the drugs themselves. If everyone engaged in it of their own free will and knew how to handle it, then there wouldn't be a problem. As it is, there are complications with drug use (addiction) and sex trade (coercion, pimping, trafficking) that lawmakers feel outweighs the right to indivuidual choices.

I disagree. Some things in life are difficult. But if we compromise important principles because some things are difficult, we lose. There are ways to deal with the negative sides of both drugs and prostitution. But it takes some straight talk, some real changes and some political balls.

Nobody wants to be known as the "pro whores and drugs" candidate... as much as that would appeal to a limited set of voters.

Click to expand...

Almost everything is problematic when done to excess. Alcohol and tobacco are both legal but kill a huge number of people each year. In Aussie we actually have a party called the Sex Party that deals with a lot of these issues.

Look, I think we have to talk about prostitution for what it really is rather than some idealized free market economy liberalization thing.

Anyone here actually seen a laissez faire sex market in its full riotous spectacle of human degeneration?

I worked in the Philippines in the 1980's and experience the glories of Mabini Street first hand. Prostitution was virtually legal and practiced openly. There must have been thousand of brothels with, what, maybe 50,000 whores and maybe several million support workers, bartenders, street venders, cabbies, restaurants, pimps, tough guys, drug dealers, gambling specialists, war lords, you name it. ALL of the whores were young women sold into virtual sex slavery by their guardians due to poverty during their sexually formative years.

No young woman ever chooses to become a whore as a career choice. That's bloody nonsense! Yet that lie is the basis for legalized prostitution.

True, sometimes the conditions these young women left were so impoverished that their new lives as whores seemed totally glamorous to them. Others clearly suffered from depression and even self-harm. Most just adapted to having daily sex with strangers and created their own caste support system. And this is before we even get to all the horrid things that regularly happen to sex workers. The vast majority lived short, stunted, unfulfilled lives dying alone in misery.

Sure, our modern western society can do better than Manila circa 1980. But for how long? If we institutionalize whoring we create in our cities a safe haven for all the most vile vices of humanity. No doubt that some of our grand-daughters will be fucking pigs on stage for twenty quid in twenty years time. Legally. And they'll be so emotional stunted they'll enjoy it.

I'm not saying that the dark side of humanity can or even should be extinguished. But don't fucking give it the imprimatur of official state approval! There lies the road to ruin.

Likewise those who compare the drug issue, especially dope-smoking, with prostitution are making a false analogy. I write these words while I administer myself my drug of choice - a single malt whisky, just to kill the pain of my Mabini Street memories.

Doctors orders.

Like I said, there are problems with sex trade, legal or not. I didn't paint as poetic a picture of it as you do, but trust me, I've seen the downsides.

I've also seen the downsides of taking away what little in terms of empowerment and legal protection they have against pimps and traffickers, by making the prostitute a criminal.

Liar said:

Like I said, there are problems with sex trade, legal or not. I didn't paint as poetic a picture of it as you do, but trust me, I've seen the downsides.

I've also seen the downsides of taking away what little in terms of empowerment and legal protection they have against pimps and traffickers, by making the prostitute a criminal.

Click to expand...

That's how I feel.

I thought we couldn't tell her what to do with her body, especially her reproductive organs...




Therefore, if it is to be outlawed, men have to be the target, unless, of course, it violates their Constitutional right to equal protection.

Prostitution is legal. We call it marriage.

sweepthefloor said:

Prostitution is legal. We call it marriage.

Click to expand...

Good point.

Liar said:

Like I said, there are problems with sex trade, legal or not. I didn't paint as poetic a picture of it as you do, but trust me, I've seen the downsides.

I've also seen the downsides of taking away what little in terms of empowerment and legal protection they have against pimps and traffickers, by making the prostitute a criminal.

Click to expand...

The sex trade is always going to exist to service the needs of a certain esoteric clientele. Fine. The cops are always going to corruptly accept bribes to let it go on. Fine. But when you make it legal to sell your daughters into mass consumer prostitution then you have past the tipping point of your civilization's reason for existence and forfeited the future for the false hope of bureaucratic regulatory security today. And all because you have a misplace faith in Government to manage the most base forces of the human psyche.

I would ask you to consider that few young women EVER chose to become whores as a career, certainly no where near enough to supply the demands of legitimate mass market. Legalizing prostitution only makes sex slavery a thousand times more lucrative trade than it already is today.

Answer to that, before you start in about "empowering" or "protecting" the rights of young women forced by pimps and circumstance into prostitution. You should be talking about empowering and protecting these girls BEFORE they are forced into sex slavery.

So by opting for state sponsored prostitution you are really saying you are OK with sex slavery. Granted I doubt ya'll have the experience to realize this is the case. You're all well meaning people who want to give the girls a union and their meds and a couple of social workers to council them when they get raped or beat and cut up, but that's ignoring all the other dark rip currents that come with prostitution, which are more powerful and persistent then any government bureaucracy can ever be simply because the trade pays so much more than a government job.

I'm sure legalized sex slavery will work out about as well as institutionalized state dependence upon welfare. Worse, actually. I'll leave the unintended consequence to your fertile imaginations.

renard_ruse said:

Here's a chart. While New Zealand has legalized it in the past decade, much of the rest of the world, indeed many "liberal" countries are amazingly going the other way, often with draconian new laws aimed ONLY at the Johns:

Click to expand...

<BadBabysitter mode on>
Hold it, pal. Are you suggesting that the law should punish prostitutes along with men? You must want to criminalize women or something! How dare you!!!

<BadBabysitter mode off>

lusta...

Do Cher, Madonna, Brittany, Christina and Ga Ga count?

lustatopia said:

The sex trade is always going to exist to service the needs of a certain esoteric clientele. Fine. The cops are always going to corruptly accept bribes to let it go on. Fine. But when you make it legal to sell your daughters into mass consumer prostitution then you have past the tipping point of your civilization's reason for existence and forfeited the future for the false hope of bureaucratic regulatory security today. And all because you have a misplace faith in Government to manage the most base forces of the human psyche.

I would ask you to consider that few young women EVER chose to become whores as a career, certainly no where near enough to supply the demands of legitimate mass market. Legalizing prostitution only makes sex slavery a thousand times more lucrative trade than it already is today.

Answer to that, before you start in about "empowering" or "protecting" the rights of young women forced by pimps and circumstance into prostitution. You should be talking about empowering and protecting these girls BEFORE they are forced into sex slavery.

So by opting for state sponsored prostitution you are really saying you are OK with sex slavery. Granted I doubt ya'll have the experience to realize this is the case. You're all well meaning people who want to give the girls a union and their meds and a couple of social workers to council them when they get raped or beat and cut up, but that's ignoring all the other dark rip currents that come with prostitution, which are more powerful and persistent then any government bureaucracy can ever be simply because the trade pays so much more than a government job.

I'm sure legalized sex slavery will work out about as well as institutionalized state dependence upon welfare. Worse, actually. I'll leave the unintended consequence to your fertile imaginations.

Click to expand...

Impressive, you manage to combo a slippery slope, a hyperbole and a red herring in one and the same cognitive step.

Sure, in a perfect world, we'd manage to intercept all possible prostitution before it happens, and prevent anyone from going down that path. In a perfect world I'd have a golden unicorn, a ten foot cock and eternal life. Funny, none of those are happening.

Sorry bub, I prefer to deal with the world as it is, not as I wish it would be.

Look at any western country with legalized but regulated prostitution. Compare the amount of prostitutes and the situation for said prostitutes to that of a western country where it is illegal. That's your difference. Some for the betterbetter, some for the worse. Not your hysteric apocalypic vision.

Liar said:

Impressive, you manage to combo a slippery slope, a hyperbole and a red herring in one and the same cognitive step.

Sure, in a perfect world, we'd manage to intercept all possible prostitution before it happens, and prevent anyone from going down that path. In a perfect world I'd have a golden unicorn, a ten foot cock and eternal life. Funny, none of those are happening.

Sorry bub, I prefer to deal with the world as it is, not as I wish it would be.

Look at any western country with legalized but regulated prostitution. Compare the amount of prostitutes and the situation for said prostitutes to that of a western country where it is illegal. That's your difference. Some for the betterbetter, some for the worse. Not your hysteric apocalypic vision.

Click to expand...

Fuck you, Squirrel. I never said we live in a perfect world or that we can stop underground brothels. That's your strawman argument.

There will obviously always be some prostitution. Fine. But when the state legitimizes it that simply makes it a money laundering scheme for every fucking racket in town while attracting the sex slave traffickers.

You won't - because you can't - answer to my central question, which is that most young women do NOT choose prostitution as a career path but are coerced into it by violence. There is always a supply shortage in the sex market. Legalization is the first step in increasing supply to meet demand. But it doesn't work because in a state sanctioned market demand increases as well. This creates the dynamics necessary for sex slave trafficking. Happens every time. In a fucked up country like the USA with utterly no border control to the South, you could expect a lot of young latin women forced into sex slavery in all 50 states.

Prostitution as they say is the oldest of the professions and as such its ways are well established. It don't change significantly between Manila and Stockholm. It's the same ugly trade. If you get the state involve all you'll do is corrupt the state and increase the supply of coerced young women into forced prostitution, while empowering the worse elements of organized crime that you apparently are too dimwitted to imagine.

And you call yourself a liberal?

If a man pays a woman for sex, it is called prostitution and is illegal.

If a man pays a woman to be videotaped during sex with him, it is called pornography and is perfectly fine.

If Family Guy can drive a cutaway gag through this logical fallacy, something's wrong.