Posts Tagged bros before hos
I had to break hiatus for this.
It came in the form of comments on a CNN article about underage sex trafficking online (bizarro world moment; CNN admitting that human trafficking exists?), though you can find the same comments in any discussion involving women and/or sex. My wife tipped me off to the article and comments, and both of us about lost our lunches before we even had a chance to eat them.
Some of the more disturbing examples from the most recent comments (as of 10:30 EST this morning) are reproduced below.
“Our children would be safer if prostitution were legal.
When I hear of a 30+ year old man living with his parents whose only income is driving a school bus, I get nervous. If I knew this man could get his ‘needs’ met at a legal facility staffed by trained professionals, I would be less nervous”
The declaration that “our children would be safer if prostitution were legal” hinges on the notion that men purchase women to fulfill a “need”, the same as going to the grocery store or stopping at a gas station, and that women gladly hand over their bodies for that “need”. The idea that men have to rape women to get their “needs” met is as old as agriculture, but it got a very successful spin when the liberal male crowd decided to take over feminism and use it as their personal meat market. Now those “needs” are happily met by women with their own “need” to be enslaved and abused, according to modern fun feminism. All women want any sex from any man at any time, and if they don’t, they’re frigid and possibly religious conservatives.
Which is nothing less than the entrenchment of rape, the systematic assault of every woman on the planet. You’re not free to choose to say “no” if saying “no” has more and greater immediate, negative consequences than capitulating.
And that’s not even getting into trafficking. No, the “free to choose” bit is what your middle school daughters have to deal with in between attempts by men to use and sell them for sex.
“Everybody pays for it…in some way or an other…whether you want to keep the transaction straightforward or you want to get married and give alimony, your house, you car, her lawyer fees and half your net worth is your choice.”
Yeah, I hope she took more than that, pal. You know you made her completely financially dependent on you if the court actually gave anything close to that much in the divorce. Funny, but that sort of split-down-the-middle thing doesn’t count the fact that her résumé probably doesn’t give her anything close to equitable earning power, or that all the credit history is almost certainly in your name, right?
I guess that’s the price you have to pay to get sex on demand, though. Boy, aren’t you glad you don’t have to deal with that crazy woman and her crazy idea that she’s more than just a push-button fuckhole at your service?
But we’re talking about child sex trafficking here, so the real issue is that you just equated having to pay alimony with purchasing a twelve-year-old for sex.
“well as long as women are rewarded for having children out of wedlock and for divorcing their husbands we will have this problem and it will get worse”
The assumption is that women should not have children without a man in control – wait, that women should not go without a man in control, period. And somehow, if men (the ones who are purchasing children for sex) are in control of women, “this problem” will be all fixed.
“What makes most older women sick is the fact that they didn’t cash in on their bodies when they were young. Trust me…women hate each other. They know that their idiot husbands will eventually leave them for a younger woman so they want to harp on the age difference.”
Yeah, ladies, why weren’t you looking for unattractive, self-absorbed rapists to give someone else fifty bucks in exchange for the chance to hurt you, fuck you, spit on you, beat you, make you wish you were dead? Why didn’t you cash in? You’re just jealous of all those other women who knew better.
Why are the husbands idiots? For not already being with a “younger woman”. In the context of a news article about child rape. “Younger woman”. Women only say that this is wrong because of “the age difference” reminding them of how old and floppy they are. Of course men want to fuck children! They’re not old!
And note also: “harp”, as in “harpy”, a mythological creature known for being ugly and eating people.
“If you don’t want to be a prostitute, take student loans, go to college, work hard and get a job. Who’s stopping you?”
Maybe her pimp? Maybe the fact that twelve-year-olds generally don’t take out student loans? Maybe you’re a victim-blaming shitbag?
“There are too many modern factors in the country that permit this sort of things, pointing the finger at a pimp and a website is nothing but lazily scape-goating the “usual suspects” while the bigger culprits (including her parents) walk free.”
The pimp is just a victim, and the parents are the true criminals! If only they weren’t poor / uneducated / non-white!
“Don’t let anyone fool you, if they sell themselves for money, they enjoy getting paid to getting laid. But they will never admit it in the open.”
He is saying this about middle school girls. He is saying that middle school girls are secretly waiting for the chance to be raped. And he seems to think that they’re the ones who get the money for it.
Even with adult prostitution, men who purchase women for sex will never have any guarantee of her consent. The chance that she’s a willing Happy Hooker™ is slim. Not that men ever try to determine whether it’s consensual or not. After all, the point is to use another person without regard for her personhood or agency, which is rape. If you’re raping someone, you don’t care about whether she “wants it”.
But we’re talking about the imprisonment, sale, and rape of children. And these men are saying the same shit that they say to defend the Happy Hooker™ myth.
Women, please, please consider pushing men out of your world. Please consider buying communal property and establishing women-only spaces everywhere you can. Please wire them up with fingerprint locks, cameras, perimeter alarms. Please establish women-only security forces and arm them. Please grow your own food and raise your own animals. Please get elected. Please only do business with other women.
SheilaG commented on the conclusion of the Men Without Women series here. Everything she said was spot on:
Last time, I detailed why men need women. Which is perhaps putting it too nicely for the menz, since that sounds like it’s short for “men need women around”, which puts men at the center and women around them, which I think I called out as a generally disastrous situation. So I guess it would be better to say that I detailed why women should be at the center, and maybe men could hang around at the edges if they behave well enough, hoping for a useful spot in the household. Important distinction to make: Men need women, but women don’t need men. Unless they want to reproduce. And, given recent scientific breakthroughs, even that won’t be a guaranteed job for men for long.
So let’s engage in a flight of fancy for a moment. Let’s say that Artemis (or Athena, or, I dunno, Emma Goldman) came swooping down and led the world’s women into a new Amazonian utopia. Things are great for everyone, except in New Jersey, a place Dan Brown, Joss Whedon, and other noted demonologists have pinpointed as a swirling pain-hole. (It doesn’t matter if it’s in Hawaii. Jersey just seems more appropriate.) The men are relegated here. The women are kinder than they have any excuse to be: we men will be educated, fed, clothed, and otherwise provided for by shipments, broadcasts, and the like; further, the women will not interfere at all in our lives – so long as we don’t stray over the wall.
Now, I kinda like this scenario, except then I remember what side of the wall I’d be on. The wrong side. With the men.
Read the rest of this entry »
Mark Scott of WBFO, the NPR affiliate based at the State University of New York at Buffalo, interviewed Lloyd Constantine last week about Constantine’s new book, Journal of the Plague Year. Constantine is a longtime friend and adviser of Eliot Spitzer. In 2007, Spitzer resigned as governor of New York after just over a year in office when the New York Times broke a story of his involvement with a prostitution service in New York City. Spitzer had taken office as a cleanup candidate after an eight-year stint as attorney general, where he pursued white-collar crime with a vengeance – and where he had busted prostitution rings in the past.
The interview is found here. The interesting part starts at about 5:27, where interviewer Scott brings up Spitzer’s frantic call to Constantine on the eve of his political demise. Constantine describes the call and his response:
“I told him immediately that he didn’t have to resign. It was almost instantaneous with me. When he told me what he had been involved with, I had in my mind a complete answer for why he had behaved so erratically in the last couple of years. And so I – my immediate conclusion, I mean within a second, was, ‘Okay. I get it now. Now I understand why you were performing so badly, so erratically, why you were losing your temper, you know, making all these misjudgments, and now that this is out, you have to fight to keep your job. You have to fight to keep your job because now that you’re free of all this stuff, you can still possibly go on to be the great governor that you were destined to be.'”
Constantine goes on to describe how Spitzer’s family – wife, sister, daughters, parents – joined him in his pleas for the embattled governor not to resign.
The idea that Spitzer had thrown away a great destiny over a little nothing like involvement in a prostitution ring is Constantine’s refrain in the interview. He frames it in terms of personal responsibility, reciting a list of governors who have resigned and stating that he doesn’t agree with “that position: this is a personal decision, you know, ‘I no longer want to do this’. I think that once you have run for office, been elected, taken all that money from your supporters, you have a responsibility to serve until you have been removed by constitutional means or you have been thrown out of office by the voters.”
Convenient manslation: Bro got caught with a prostitute? Whatever! He’s a good guy! Why should he have to face a penalty? Puny concepts of rule of law, ethics, and public responsibility are nothing in the face of a great man who’s destined for great things. Look, even his wife doesn’t care that he spent more than a middle-class salary’s worth on prostitutes during his tenure in public office. What a wuss to resign over something like this! A real man would have stuck it out, stayed the course, shown that he was above that noise.
This is the American man, packaged neatly and accessibly. And he nearly made me vomit in my lap on my drive home this morning.