The most valuable of cookies.

I found quite an interesting video on youtube made by a man talking about prostitution and the GFE (the girlfriend experience)… and I’m going to give him a cookie. An oatmeal-raisin cookie, or a fig roll— Nothing with chocolate in it, don’t worry…

Once you get past the usual fails it becomes quite easy to listen to. Which is how radical feminists measure information. We ask ourselves, “Is this tolerable to listen to?” “Can I bear to hear any more”. 99% of the time the answer is, “No”, but if we can press on then chances are the person is presenting us with an idea we’ve never heard before, or a new interesting perspective. It rarely happens, which is why when it does it is noticeable.

Recently, certain groups of men are speaking out against the sex industry or against porn, but when you ask them their reasons you very often find that their motivations are pretty narcissistic. It all comes down to how the industry affects them and their sexuality, and they bear very few insights into the fact women are human beings. Or they use their male privilege to become a loud voice in the anti-porn lobby, and then sneak caveats into their narratives, such as their belief that women must accept men’s help if we want to eradicate porn. Radical feminists agree… kind of. Men can help women eradicate the sex industry by focusing on educating other men, for sure, and by not paying for sex or buying porn, but not by leading the movement, or by lecturing to women about what radical feminists have been saying for fourty years:

“In the wider context of the struggle for gender equality and the eradication of violence against women, pornography represents the primary barrier to men’s mass engagement in the cause for women’s equality. The cultural and social impact of porn on the way in which men think about and treat women is profound. Pornography has become the principle machine of patriarchal propaganda and its use is fundamentally incompatible with genuine engagement with and respect for women, I believe the inclusion of men in the anti-porn feminist movement is vital to its success.” (Matt McCormack Evans, Big Porn Inc)

Hmm… so Matt McCormack has been given a Marshmallow-Caramel-Creme-Cookie-topped-with-Chocolate-Sprinkles for stating the bloody obvious, before going on to insist that women accept men’s help. Which smacks of “knight in shining armor” syndrome.

But at least he does a better job than this guy in his article “Should you Have the Girlfriend Experience?”

A client of mine said to me once, “My hooker tells me all the time that she would see me even if I didn’t pay her.”

Really?  Try that and see what happens.  It’s a business.  Their business is dicks. Their business is to get you off.

I’ve lived in Los Angeles; I’ve lived in New York City, and I know a lot of escorts.  They can’t wait to get the hell out of your house! No matter how much fun you think you think you’re having with them, you’re paying them and if you weren’t paying them, they wouldn’t be there with you.

Period.

The bottom line is hookers are a crutch—they really are. Sure, you got laid. Sure, you got off. You’re feeling better now. But what an empty feeling.

I’m after incredible experiences.

I want to feel like a King all day long, so I work my ass off and I do things that keep me expanding and growing.

It’s not easy; it takes courage and awareness

So don’t  visit hookers beacuse you can get a better buzz elsewhere and David Gwyant can show you how! And where’s his box of cookies while he’s at it..?

Rmott once wrote something that has always stayed with me. She said that out of all the experiences she’s survived, nothing compares to “the hell of the girlfriend experience.” I had to think about that one for a moment because you would assume that if a man is paying for an emotional connection, he might see her as more than just a piece of interchangeable meat. This section of the market is growing considerably and the reason for this is because–the argument goes– men are starting to realise that paying for sex and then leaving immediately afterwards is an empty experience. New “research” enthusiastically backs this theory, touting the idea that “Men Who Pay For Sex Really Want Love“.

But in reality, it seems that men seeking the GFE are just as, if not more, sadistic than your average john. They toy with the woman’s mind, make her feel important, not just a whore, until she actually begins to believe that he is in it for her, before they do something to put her back in her place to remind her that she has been bought. The emotional pain is always unexpected. So when you look at it in this light, the girlfriend experience is pure, unadulterated sadism.

Before I point out one of the fails of this clip so that you the radfems out there can brace themselves a little, it’s worth mentioning that the narrator is anonymous. Women and men use the internet differently. You can usually tell that a commenter on a blog is a transwoman, for example, by the fact that their gravatar is a face shot. Radical feminists represent themselves with symbols such as flowers, animals or fruit or something symbolic to the movement. We do this because we are vilified, stalked and harrassed for our political beliefs.

The guy who made this vid knew beforehand that he would get no praise, and would probably be ridiculed by his mates, as well as having to deal with drive-by shots from internet randoms. If he’s working class, (and his accent and his past occupation tells us that he is), then the chances of him being laughed at by his peers for his anti-porn stance are even higher because men lower down in the pecking order often abuse women in to make themselves feel better about their lack of social status, as we saw recently with the Pussy Riot fiasco. (Middle class men with Ph.Ds, like McCormick, can afford to be more “liberated” in their outlook because their social status is secure.)

But the guy made it anyway. This is pretty unusual.

In his introduction when he says that prostitution is not the same as other jobs, even though some jobs are regarded as pretty unpleasant, he cites the examples  “building sites” and “toilet-cleaning”. But to lump those two jobs together shows that he is fairly ignorant of sexual politics in the workplace. Builders are paid a living wage. In the UK, they do very well indeed. Whereas toilet cleaners barely scrape by on the minimum wage. The social status and prestige of a builder is much higher, despite the fact both jobs are blue-collar jobs, and this is because of the huge difference in pay. Also, toilet cleaning deals with shit and piss, which is why it has been delegated to the touchable caste— women.

The other thing is that… I don’t know why toilet cleaning get such a bad rap (apart from the shit and piss thing)… because as far as available jobs for women go, it’s by far one of the best, and I’ll tell you why.

When I worked as a toilet-cleaner in a psychiatric hospital for elderly patients (yeah, the toilets were pretty rough), and when I worked as a toilet cleaner at a summer camp, I found myself realising that this work was far better than dead-end retail. This is because I hate people… or rather I hate putting on a fakey smile and being nice to people I don’t know from Adam… and then doing that for eight hours a day. I can’t stand the acting that’s involved in the whole sherade, and kow-towing to customers who define themselves by their need to make complaints in a restaurant, which is really a desire to embarrass the young waitress for kicks. And you don’t have to deal with drunk and lecherous men, or men who rant and rave at you for getting their order wrong, which is what used to happen when I worked in a late-night pizza shop… even though they were drunk and didn’t remember what they’d ordered. Or men tellling you to “smile” or “cheer up, love, it might never happen.”

Erm… it already did. Idiot.

No, with toilet cleaning you are exempt from all of that. One similarity toilet cleaning does have with construction work, though, is the fact that in both jobs you complete something. In retail there is so much clock-watching it’s unreal, as you count down the slow slow seconds to home time. Whereas with toilet cleaning, you go home when you’ve cleaned the bloody toilets and that’s that. Although it’s pretty obvious that there is no comparison between completing a HOUSE and completing a toilet.. because the toilets going to get dirty again in ten minutes.

Anyway, ignore the fails and enjoy the vid. I dunno, maybe I found it kind of hopeful or something. At any rate, an oatmeal cookie from a radfem is surely more valuable than a luxury cookie from anyone else….

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “The most valuable of cookies.

  1. Excellent as always Cherry.

    I figure guys (and some women) focus on the male point of view because the damage to the woman is so much more obvious. Also to win the alliance of men it’s strategic top look at their point of view.

    I found the video so-so. There was quite a bit of unnecessary references to sexual parts of the body, and porn/ prostitute activities.
    But the general drift is good.

    What I think really needs to be hammered is that the prostitute or porn actress DOES NOT LIKE YOU. The whole thing hinges on the male fantasy that even without the money she’d still do this for me.
    We need to blow this sky high.
    But it’s very tenacious. I’ve argued with guys on blogs and board CONVINCED the woman likes her work – likes him – because she says so. Duh! Do you really think the person on a supermarket checkout is delighted to see you so they smile at you? No. They are PAID to smile.

    I think if a lot of men kept meeting the question “Do you really want sex (or simulated sex) with someone who hates doing it – and can’t wait for you to GO? Who ONLY wants your money?” this would push a lot of men further away from the sex industry.

    There are men who DO like it. They want to be detached. Or they love the domination that She is doing what she hates, for them. Those need different treatment. But I do think quite a few would reform if they kept meeting that question – do you want sex with someone who just wants you to finish and pay?

    Maybe I’m naive.

    • I think they focus on the guy’s point of view because that’s all that matters.

      I also don’t think there is really any comparison between a girl smiling at the supermarket check-out and a prostitute offering her body.. or being paid to do a web chat. Because the check-out girl is not actually paid to smile; she’s paid to run the till and put the food into bags. SHe won’t lose her job (or get beaten up) if she doesn’t smile. It’s just that people (men) will be nicer to her if she puts on a chirpy act. Having said that, retail is about pleasing the customer… but there is simply no comparison between that and what prostitutes have to do.

      But I do agree that the majority of men who go to prostitutes are not doing it because they’re sad loners that we’re all supposed to feel sorry for. They do it for the control. Whether it’s a homeless guy, or a disabled guy, or a wealthy married man… it’s all about control and hatred of women.

      Women’s sympathy is misplaced when they buy into this idea that “all men need sex”… and indeed when women argue that disabled men require prostitutes, and that “sex workers” are filling a legitimate need. This point of view is in fact very ableist because they believe that a man in wheelchair wouldn’t be able to get a woman without paying for it.

  2. Sorry, I re-read your post and saw that you believe men would stop doing it if they knew the women didn’T like them.
    No, men who pay for sex by definition don’t give a shit about the women at all. THey know deep down she’s only there because he’s paying her… and this deepens their misogyny.
    They forget that in a non-patriarchal society women would never have to sell their bodies, that this is a patriarchal invention.

  3. I still think the checkout operator is a good analogy – or any sales job. Because this too is women being paid for bodily “being nice.” With smiles, warmth, ego stroking behaviour right up to the waitress wearing sexy clothes and allowing her bottom to be pinched.
    Because she WILL lose her job if she doesn’t smile “put out” warmth, allow the familiarity. The manager won’t say that’s why but she’ll get pushed out and a more compliant girl put in. Why else do women in those jobs smile when exhausted? when people are horribly rude?

    You’re right in a sense there is “no comparison.” The gap is big. But it’s a difference of quantity – how much of herself, how intimate a part of herself she sells. It’s the same KIND of stuff. Just much much bigger.

    Totally agree prostitution is about hatred.
    But I have myself had great success convincing men – and women – that prostitution is bad because the woman actually hates her john so it’s all a foul lie. Once people see that a lot of them women and men change their ideas. Their support is based on a fantasy of a clean nice way to do it, and prostitution as a professional service. Men especially fantasise it’s real, that she likes HIM – not her other clients, HIM (Suzie Wong)

    As I said there is still a large sector of men who do know that where I agree with you. But some men are merely fools, rather than thugs. Fools can be educated. Thugs call for quarantine.

    • We’ll have to disagree on the idea that working at a check-out is anything like working in the sex industry. YOu do NOT lose your job if you’re having a bad day and don’t smile. You do not lose your job if you’re 6 months pregnant etc etc

      • Speak for yourself – I worked as a pharmacy technician, which includes selling the finished prescription to the customer. I was told I have to make the customer feel good and kiss their ass if necessary. I got fired for merely rolling my eyes during a particularly difficult transaction.

      • In many countries, you would not be given the sack for not smiling or “rolling your eyes”. You could just say you were having a bad day or whatever. In prostitution, the GFE, you actually are being paid to smile. IN fact you’d better, or there will be repercussions.

  4. did you ever watch anything by the “prostitution and sandwiches” guy aka. “rubble of empires”? he seems to get it too, in a doodly kind of way, which is to say he enjoys pwning other men and pointing out the logical fallacies in pro-pornstitution arguments. which is a gret way to spend your time IMO compared to everything else a dood could spend his time doing…..

    i had an email convo with him once, wherein he mansplained to me how my PIV criticism was “disingenuous”. LOL robert jensen (i think?) once clarified a point for me that was helpful, where he reminded everyone that porn is about dom/sub and power-over, and that if you can imagine a relationship of dominance/submission (or power-over) you can be assured that theres been porn made of it. maid/master, master/slave, cop/citizen etc etc. and i hadnt heard it put that way before. he probably got that from a woman though.

    anyhoo, i havent watched the vid. did he actually make an original point? if so, would you explain it so i dont have to watch? (remember radfemcrafts’s book series where she read terrible books “so we wouldnt have to” and reported back? that was immensely helpful). 🙂 and surely very time consuming and aggravating for her….

    • No I haven’t watched that guy. But that’s true about any dom/sub relationship being made into porn. The idea that disturbs me the most is medical porn.. because how many doctors and physicians, especially those who for god knows what reason are in gynecology, secretly watch porn??? Medical porn at that!? Maybe that’s why they got into the medical profession in the first place! How can we ever know!

      I’m not sure that he did make an original point. And looking back he does focus more on how fucked up the men are, rather than how much damage is done to the women, but anyway he’s very easy to listen to. Some extracts:

      “So, even our mind-numbed porn punter feels the lack of this emotional interaction and has to find a substitute for it, but in the case of “alienated sex” the only substitute available is control. He can rewind the video and repeat his favourite bit; he can choose Korean or Japanese girls; bit tits, small tits, whatever… So he replaces *mutual* interaction with *control*… Which is a kind of interaction, but is one in which *her* response is expressed with displaying distress or pain.
      Also, control sets up the negative feed-back loop, because the more he controls her actions, the less she’s able to act spontaneously, so any element of freshness just drains out of the experience. And then to compensate for this decline, he has to be even more controlling.

      In contrast, with a *genuine* interaction, just someone touching your hand can be thrilling over and over again, because each time it’s potentially a fresh experience, animated by the excitement of actually connecting with another person.
      With porn, what used to be exciting soon becomes boring, leading to the desire for more control, which by definition means he needs to violate more of her boundaries. In other words, he needs to become more abusive and sadistic because *her* pain or distress is the one thing his numbed senses can still register, and get excited by.
      So now he needs to seek out exactly those activities that she doesn’t want to perform as a way to express his control over her.” ”

      So he needs to seek a “little extra”. But that extra is never about seeing more foreplay or more human tenderness, because that aspect of sexual interaction is, by definition, not open to him… and then eventually, he gets to… pure sadism.

      porn, and commercialized sex in general can only push people in one direction… towards sadism. And… fair enough each individual will travel that road at a different speed, which could include a very slow drift towards sadism, but it *is* a one-way street. No one ever started off with “dirty sluts do ***” and ended up looking at tasteful pictures of half-naked girls in a cornfield. So anyway, that inevitable drive towards sadism is what disqualifies both the justifications for the sex industry.

      Constant exposure to porn has already reduced a lot of men in this society to sad trainspotters who can only relate to women in terms of numbers. Seeing her doing two different positions must be better than just one. So imagine how great it would be to see her do all ten. Yeah, collect the full set.

      The problem is that the thrill has been made external to the actual experience, so in the end the best thing about watching nuns with big tits is that you can brag about it afterwards to your mates so you can hear them say “Yes, that must’ve been really hot.” Except, it’s not. The experience itself is empty, and just leaves you wanting more— but not in a good way.

      In this context, it’s telling that the sex industry is now trying to overcome the contradiction at the heart of its product by including even more phoney interaction. This explains why live video is the fastest growing format in porn. The “extra” being that the punter can now e-mail in instructions such as: turn around, take your blouse off or whatever. Then the woman does what he says and pretends she’s enjoying it. But it’s all so obviously fake and desperate that it just makes the whole event even more depressing and pointless. And this was summed up by one I saw, where a punter e-mailed in “Give us a smile”. …. You’ve got this human being, despite being trapped in his addiction to porn, still feels the need to have some sort of emotional contact, but the only way he can reach that is by sending an e-mail to some poor woman in a room, on an anonymous industrial estate, who then pretends to respond as if she was involved in the kind of genuine erotic encounter…

  5. I found this video to be rambling and incoherent without any cogent critique whatsoever. The Johns: Sex for Sale and The Men Who Buy it by Victor Malarek provides a far more succinct analysis and critique of men’s justifications for purchasing female bodies to use as disposable dustbins.

    In some countries legislation is at least in place making it illegal for male employees to sexually harass female employees, but as always individual women have to take individual action. But men know that outside of the workplace all they have to do is to enter any lapdancing club/brothel and they can purchase the women in these places and the men know they will not be criminalised or ostracised by our Male Supremacist System. Instead prostitution is viewed as merely a transaction between two individuals of equal societal power and status.

    Victor Malarek in his book analyses why so many Johns want ‘the girl friend experience’ and he provides first hand male accounts for their justifications and fury at prostituted women/girls who do not massage the Johns’ overblow egos. The John believes that because he has purchased the woman this means she should do her utmost to ‘please him in whatever way he demands.’ She exists only to serve his needs and pleasures because she is not a human being, instead she is merely an object but at same time an object who is to some extent human.

    This is why so many Johns want the ‘girlfriend experience.’ They want to purchase a woman/girl who will for a number of days/hours make him feel he is the most powerful man on this planet. She will slavishly cater to his every demand and when he is satiated he knows he can then discard her because she has done precisely what he wanted.

    Men want it both ways – the right to have sexual access to any female of any age but at the same time they want the woman/girl to make them feel they are ‘masters of the world.’ As always it is about male domination/female submission plus eroticised male sexual power and male sexual control over the woman/girl.

    This male myopic view is logical from the male perspective, because men are
    taught from minute they are born that default human is male and the world supposedly exists for men and their interests. We women do not exist in own right other than to serve men 24/7 and this includes serving men sexually in whatever way they demand.

    So Johns want sexual power and control over prostituted women and girls but they also want the prostituted women and girls to make them feel they are ‘the most powerful men on this planet.’ But what these men are not prepared to accept is that prostituted women and girls are not ‘robots’ who can be programmed to enact any emotion/human interaction on male demand because if that were to happen this would mean the prostituted woman/girl is human not men’s disposable masturbatory dustbins.

    The girlfriend experience is a continuum of what many men demand from their female partners; total submission/subservience to the male master and woe betide the woman if she shows any sign of self-hood because that immediately challenges male power and male control.

    Regarding claims disabled men ‘need sexual access to females.’ This is just another male excuse/justification for men’s pseudo right of sexual access to females. No man has ever spontaneously combusted from lack of sexual access to a female body. Food, shelter and water are the only essentials all humans need to survive – not male supremacist sex but men continue to claim they will spontaneously combust if they do not have regular sexual access to female bodies.

    If disabled men need ‘sexual access’ so then do disabled women but women did not create prostitution men did because men continue to believe women are not human but merely exist to serve men 24/7.

    • Thanks for that Hecuba. If you just saw the video as being “rambling and incoherent without any cogent critique whatsoever” then maybe I’m just getting soft in my old age.
      Lesson learned 🙂
      I don’t usually read books by men, but I’ll look into the one you’ve recommended.

    • Although, I do think that the guy in this video was speaking to a different audience than, say, Malarek. He had to speak at their level IYSWIM. He got enough “haters” in the comments underneath, which is always a good sign.

    • I very much agree that “No man has ever spontaneously combusted from lack of sexual access to a female body.”
      But it is not true that “Food, shelter and water are the only essentials all humans need to survive.” That is a too narrow definition. Humans need contact with other humans, they need connection, physical touch – and hope. Touch does not mean explicitly sexual touch, though all touch is erotic on a deeper level as a kind of bio-electricity.

      Without touch, contact, connection, humans do not thrive. It can make the difference between surviving surgery, or infection, or not. It can mean survival of PTSD. Coversely I have seen people recover in half the time if they have that touch connection. Elderly people live longer if they stroke an animals. It’s that basic.

      In my next explanation I am not trying to stir pity for men. This is a detached assessment. It’s a fairly Reichian analysis.

      I believe that the way boy children are socialised chokes them off from natural emotions of vulnerability, need. sensitivity. Instead by the time they are toddlers the process is established. They must channel a huge amount of forbidden need either into aggression or sex – a limited kind of squirt sex. This is why so many men can express very little else. They live as blanks except for aggro and squirting.

      But under the blank robot the terrified, frustrated, agonisingly lonely being (think of a baby) is trying to reconnect. Desperate attempts to constantly compulsively reconnect, to LIVE, through the only two permitted channels mean an awful lot of aggro and an awful lot of unsatisfying sex which sets off more frustrated anger.
      I sometimes think the penis is a pathetic little bridge trying to make this connection, and getting swamped with the load it carries.

      I have known both prostitutes and promiscuous women describe how if a man can be reached, if he can be persuaded to stop pushing all his feelings through his penis, he will sometimes get angry and need persuading out of that. With or without that barrier he can quite rapidly cry. His ghastly isolation is exposed and it is unbearable. I also treated men like this in therapy over 20 years among other clients of course. When it worked it built loving humanised men and good marriages.

      Of course whether a woman finds it worthwhile to service a man in this way is very debatable. She might, as I did out of a mix of compassion and cold curiosity – it was an interesting pattern. Plus I got well paid and other women benefited.
      It is important that this does not become yet another stroke ego trip. But actually it is a deeply painful trip for the man which takes real courage, our kind of courage not the easy superman kind.

      I learned this art from a woman who worked with abusers and rapists in Broadmoor, visiting the high security men in there. I knew her fairly well enough to know her toughness and her dignity. I admired her and I found what she taught me worked.

      It also helped me in the strange marriage I took on – suddenly going from lifelong dyke at 40 to deeply in love with my best friend who was /is a man. His passages of emotional desert and anger over the early years as he struggled to achieve true intimacy, fitted this exactly. Reachng into him to INSIST he be real, and not switch off into robot was exactly what was needed. Sometimes indeed it felt downright sadistic because it agonised him so. But it worked.

      Again no woman should ever try anything like this unless she truly wishes it for reasons that clearly gift and benefit her.
      I also understand if some women find this disturbing and repulsive – servicing the oppressor yet again.
      Sisterhood is about choice. What we each want.

      • Shan,
        Radical feminism has got nothing to do with choice, or what we each want.
        While I don’t mind it if people want to use my blog to educate themselves, there comes a point where I have to push them in the direction of some reading. THere is a blogroll on the right. Take your pic of blogs and read, read, read.

        Just as it’s polite to read up on Marxism, say, before commenting on a Marxist blog, it’s polite to try and understand the basic ideology of radical feminism before making lengthy comments about mainstream ideology when you’re on a radfem blog.

        Everything you need to know about our movement is in books, but if you have any specific questions I’d be happy to try and answer them.

      • For example, I have no idea what you mean when you attempt to make a link between prostitutes and “promiscuous” women— as if the experiences of a prostituted woman are in any way similar to that of a non-prostituted woman!

        But anyway, read up on radical feminism!

      • “I am not trying to stir pity for men. (…) It’s a fairly Reichian analysis.”

        Wilhelm Reich is like the most misogynistic and PIV-loving psychoanalytical person out there since Freud. If you read other stuff like CBL suggested you will very easily see.

  6. I don’t think men deserve cookies for talking against prostitution or pornography. There’s just no risk or hardship to it, because when you talk about this as a man all the usual knee-jerk reactions (e.g. “you’re a stuck-up bitch”, “you just need to get fucked” or “you’re a feminazi”) don’t work, and people basically just sputter at you. I’ve been accused of not being a “real man” just once, and I laughed it off. It just seems silly when a man does it, and twice as silly when a funfem does it.

    I think it all stems from the belief that women need men’s approval in order to accomplish anything (a nice reversal of the truth!). I prefer to think that any form of feminism that is attractive to men can’t possibly be real feminism, because men would not sign up to eradicate their own privilege. If the anti-pornography movement or the abolitionist movement started to attract a lot of male attention, I’d start worrying that something’s gone wrong.

    • Absolutely Francois. My base line is: men don’t know anything about anything, and once you get the knack for spotting it you begin to see that any idea they’ve ever had was already written by a woman years previously. I am not exaggerating. You find that the woman was ignored, but a few years later when a man writes a book on the same theme he receives lots of publicity.

      Anyway, because this is my base line.. I just found it interesting that I was able to listen to this guy talking. He is actually saying stuff that is against men’s best interests… And he’s not even getting any money or cookies out of it, like McCormack and Malarek are….

      But you’re right that there is no risk to it, and I’ve YET to see a man come up with an original idea concerning women’s exploitation in the sex industry: one that wasn’t covered by Dworkin, for example, although FCM mentioned above that she has seen this phenomenon take place. Once,.

      What I found original about this man’s POV was that he says that men replace emotional intimacy with “control”.I knew porn and prostitution was about control but it never crossed my mind that because emotional intimacy can *never* be part of a paid transaction EVER the only thing a man can do is replace the “lack— the emptiness— with more control.
      He talked about the fact that this lack is “at the heart of the product” of the sex industry, which he then links to the fact that online sex is increasing in popularity. It simulates *more* phoney intimacy.
      And I really liked the analogy of a “smile”. There is something very very miserable, sad and impotent about paying a human being to smile at you. IN fact it epitomizes what the sex industry is and puts pay to all this crap about “sex being a need”. So the question is, if it’s bad to pay a woman to smile at you (and it is), then how bad must it be to pay a woman to do sexual services…? The sadism involved in such a transaction is so extreme that people block out its severity. And yet we’re all able to accept that there’s something very wrong with paying for a smile.

      So basically it’s clear he’s aiming for a particular audience: working class men, possibly young men, judging by the lingo he uses. And telling men that they’re “sad trainspotters” if they watch porn is a good strategy. Targeting men’s virility is an effective strategy, because they’re never going GET that they’re perpetrating human rights abuses. He’s getting no money out of it, no book sales… and he’s anonymous, just like radfems have to be.

      But yeah… I won’t be writing another post like this anytime soon!

      • Yea, I don’t think men will improve any time soon on the tremendous work done by Dworkin, Daly et al. One must be humble and learn from the masters. I am still in awe of all of it, and eagerly learning.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s