You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Prostitution’ tag.
When you loosen the laws around statutory rape and prostitution – more of those things happen. But apparently it is “okay” if you are fighting or LGBTQ+ equality.
Of course, it is utter bullshit, as most legislation/rhetoric that emanates from the post-modern queer left. This excerpt from an essay by titled a Predators’s Paradise.
“But who exactly are these “queer kids” and “gay kids” he’s talking about? He can’t be referring to the young gay teens who are the victims of felony statutory rape; those minors weren’t being discriminated against by the law—they were being protected by its bright-line insistence that they were sexually off-limits to predatory adults. When he refers to discrimination against “queer kids,” Wiener seems actually to be concerned with the law’s unfairness to the perpetrators of felony statutory rape. That is, he worries about a twentysomething adult—a “kid,” in his turn of phrase—who has sex with a minor.
Many of us would reasonably oppose the prosecution of, say, an 18-year-old high school senior arrested for a consensual sexual encounter with his 16-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend. But in California, that scenario doesn’t describe a felony, and does not require anyone to register as a sex offender. Wiener’s bill deals with older offenders who have sexual relations with 14- or 15-year-old kids. I asked him why those young teens shouldn’t deserve the protection of the law. “Then why aren’t you asking this of any other legislator?” he replied. “I mean, honestly, what you’re doing is you’re saying to the gay people who are just asking to be treated equally: Why don’t you change everything for everyone? And no one’s asking that of any straight legislator.”
The equality argument is Wiener’s classic sleight of hand, and he’s practiced it many times. When he authored the bill to eliminate the felony penalty enhancement for knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV, for example, he claimed the mantle of fighting the “discrimination” against those living with the disease. But, as a consequence of the bill, there is now no justice for a gay man infected with HIV by a sex partner who lied about it. The violation of his consent and bodily integrity now go unvindicated. Similarly, the violent reality of today’s pimp-dominated sex trade seems to have escaped Wiener’s legislative pen. As we have seen, the repeal of the anti-loitering statute is a boon to human traffickers, not their victims.”
[…]
“In 2019, Wiener cosponsored the “LGBTQ Foster Youth Bill of Rights,” another law with disturbing implications. The bill granted LGBTQ-identified foster kids the rights, among other things, to abortions, contraception, and medical treatment for sexual assault, “without the knowledge or consent of any adult.” Included in this bill of new “rights” was this one: “the right to ‘access to computer technology and the internet.’” Suddenly, foster parents found it impossible to police the Internet activity of their foster kids.
The bill’s supporters claim that Internet access allows LGBTQ foster youth to obtain the peer support they need. Such support is necessary, they say, since so many of these kids are extremely vulnerable, lacking intact family. But that same vulnerability should make us extraordinarily wary of government handing numberless adults what amounts to a right of Internet access to these children. After all, so much harm comes to adolescents via fiber-optic cables. Why prevent foster parents—adults the state has at least vetted—from regulating foster kids’ communication with unvetted adults?
As a result of this law, adult sexual predators of all orientations in California gained greater access to child victims. The Internet has become a major tool of traffickers—particularly of boys, Ugarte told me. “Sextortion is the new trend, where there’s an avatar girl, and they befriend a boy, then send them to a chat room. And say: ‘Hey, you know, I like you. Why don’t you let me see your body? I want to see what you look like because you’re so handsome.’ He gets naked. And then once they do that, they go and tell him: ‘If you do not give us $5,000, we’re going to expose you in all the Internet. Meaning, in every single social media.’”
Not really impressed with the whole ‘this is empowering’ crowd.
This folks, is a critique of the dominant strain of (neo) liberal thought in our society when it comes to the class of women selling themselves to men for sex. This is not a individual critique, but rather an indictment of the <em>system</em> that allows the horror of prostitution to exist in the first place. (There. I’ve stated it first thing, but I still don’t hold much hope for the lib-fem handmaidens not to somehow turn this into ‘slut-shaming’ *smh*)
The below quote is from Meghan Murphy writing at the Feminist current and essentially says that what we have now (disregard for women as people, incels etc) stems directly from the lib-fem backed notions of ‘sexual-liberation’ and ‘female-empowerment’. This is her response to a NYT opinion article that has set the liberal feminist twittersphere afire as the grizzly endpoint of their foolishness has become a reality – and that reality is far from good if you happen to be female.
“Douthat doesn’t advocate for a dehumanized and commodified “redistribution of sex,” he just says this is what liberals like Penny and Friedman have fought for and won. Douthat writes:
“… As offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies”
He also rightly points out that our understanding of sex and sexual liberation has been very much shaped by Hugh Hefner — meaning that we have adopted a social value that says men should have access to a wide variety of young, sexualized, one-dimensional women who are always “up for it.”
I suspect part of the problem, beyond their inability to think their way out of a paper bag, is that Douthat called out the zealous efforts of these liberals and leftists to “transform prostitution into legalized and regulated ‘sex work,’” thereby encouraging nouveau-porn technologies like sex robots and the broader notion that men have a right to sex. And beyond that, they did so without “formally debating the idea of a right to sex” or, I’d argue, listening to the masses of feminists who have, over decades, been pointing out that if you want actual sexual liberation for women, you can’t achieve it while simultaneously commodifying sex and saying that it’s acceptable for some women to be treated as sex objects, so long as they are compensated.
Friedman told Vice that “she finds it ‘profoundly appalling’ that The New York Times’ opinion pages would legitimize incel culture under the guise of a debate,” making it clear that she (whether intentionally or unintentionally) missed the point entirely. In fact, it is Friedman and her gaggle of desperate-to-be-cool liberal cronies who focused their careers on trying to legitimize exactly the mindset incels have internalized, and who then lashed out in anger (too-often violently) at the discovery that their fantasy was just that.
I wonder what they thought the end result of fighting for a porn industry and sex trade would be? That men would think, “Gosh, the best way to build relationships with women is through respect and by getting to know them as the humans they clearly are”? Or, rather, would they come to the conclusion that women’s bodies are things that exist to be fucked, and that at any given moment, they should be able to get off, in whatever way they like, regardless of how the woman on the other side of their laptop screen feels about it?”
Bolding mine. I’m curious my lib-fem friends, what’s your next empowerful move going to be? Perhaps not catering to men should start to wiggle up the priority list, no?
The faster the world adopts the Nordic Model, the better it will be for women.
“There was only one group of people who were ever responsible for endangering my life when I was in prostitution and they most certainly were not abolitionists; they were sex buying men. The same sex buying men whose dicks will never be sucked by the liberal feminists who defend and uphold the right of those men to have their dicks sucked by other women; economically disenfranchised, economically disadvantaged, socially deprived, and racially marginalized women.”
— Rachel Moran at Femifest 2014
Not seeing or feeling the empowerment of sexwork prostitution? Me either.
Tatsuya Ishida has been fearless as of late critically examining the ill effects of prostitution and human trafficking in our society. Go to sinfest.net to see the whole series.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…