Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA pussy cartel reddit sex

Legal prostitution will hurt women, and that’s good, says allegedly pro-woman MRA

If only all women were whores!

A lot of MRAs maintain that they’re not anti-woman, just antifeminist. Heck, one new contributor to Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit has put that claim in the name he chooses to identify himself by: ProWomanAntiFeminist.

Alas, his comments don’t quite live up his moniker. PRAF (for short) launched his Reddit career a couple of days ago with a series of comments, all of them upvoted by the regulars, arguing that prostitution should be legalized — because he thinks that would be bad for women. “[L]egal prostitution reduces women’s economic advantage over men,” he argued in his second comment. Why? According to PRAF, because prostitutes offer men a better deal on sex:

[P]rostitutes give men no strings attached sexual satisfaction reasonably and anonymously for a set price. Without the man having to jump through arbitrary hoops to “impress” the girl, risking an “oops” pregnancy, or (god forbid) getting married.

When sex and female companionship is a man’s objective, prostitution is an efficient and cost-effective option that many women don’t want to have to compete with.

In other words, prostitutes break the back of the dreaded Pussy Cartel — or, as PWAF would call it, the “sexual trade union.” Not only are wives and girlfriends more costly in the long run for men, but they’re also not actually obligated to have sex:

Married women get unfettered access and control over male resources, and they don’t even have to put out. Girlfriends get some access to male resources, dependent on how attractive she is and how desperate he is.

Simply paying up front for sex is so much more convenient:

Prostitutes offer a dependable, no strings attached experience for men.

And so we come to what PWAF sees as the big payoff here:

Legal prostitution reduces the desperation of men, mandating that non-prostitute women have to bring more to the table to secure male resources.

I suggest you read that last sentence over again, because it’s a doozy.

Even by his own daffy logic, PWAF is advocating something that he clearly sees as anti-woman — or at least anti “non-prostitute women,” as he so charmingly puts it.

Might want to rethink that name.

Of course, given PWAF’s familiarity with MR lingo and logic, I suspect that this “new” commenter is actually a very old commenter under a new name.

I’d suggest he go back to his old one.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

82 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

Last night I wanted to have sex but my boyfriend didn’t.

So we made chocolate-coated almonds together (using lightly salted almonds=YUM), watched a documentary about prison overcrowding, and fell asleep cuddling.

I suppose he could have hired a prostitute to do all that, but it might have taken some shopping around to get one with confectionery skills. And it would have cost him a whole lot more, unless you consider “showing affection” to be a huge horrible cost to a man.

I always hope it doesn’t come off as gloating or TMI, but I feel like telling little vignettes from Earth–always more complex and usually far more fun than MRAland–is the best way to show how absurd the “men trade money and affection-charades for women’s pussies, other than that they can’t stand each other” paradigm is.

Temporary Name
Temporary Name
10 years ago

I don’t feel threatened in the least by prostitutes, because their clients and the guys I would be interested in do not overlap. Why do MRA types like to constantly tell me that all guys only want sex, when my romantic history says that isn’t true? If I’m allowed to have old-fashioned values (and rather than allowed, some MRA would prefer the values be forced), why aren’t men allowed to have compatible values? I would hate to be a MRA because their movement is just so bossy and inconsistant in what it’s trying to boss you to be!

swgmigraines
10 years ago

Given how disgusting and ‘used-up’ these guys find women who’ve had multiple sex partners, I have a hard time believing that they would be lining up to take advantage of legal prostitution. Or, at the very least, that they wouldn’t hate and loathe themselves afterwards and direct that all back on womankind (“If the price of pussy weren’t so high, I wouldn’t have to degrade myself by sleeping with filthy whores!” or some such nonsense.)

Pyena
10 years ago

Although I think the whole sex economics thing is bullshit, I’m actually in favor of legalized prostitution. (Though not for the same reasons as this guy.)

I think it’s better for a person of whatever gender to be able to pay for sex with another person of whatever gender instead of letting their repression build up until they go crazy.

oldfeminist
10 years ago

He says women have control over “male resources.” He’s suggesting that money is a male resource. It’s not.

Both partners have control over shared resources. Sometimes women contribute more. Often they contribute more unpaid labor, most often childbearing and child care and housework. Not to mention the unpaid labor from getting paid less for the same work in the paid workforce, though that is not taken home.

You would think they’d want women paid more so they don’t have to depend on men’s irrationally higher pay when the decision is made to reduce to one wage-earner in the family.

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

Reserving comment on legalized prostitution for now, I love how these guys think every woman cares about cock. And that every man hates romance: I am not often interested in men, but I *promise* you the ones I am care about it as well.

Also, sexual economics is even more voodoo than most forms of economics. Pretty impressive, that is.

Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

I think legalized prostitution would be an okay thing to have in an ideal world, one where people respected sex workers as just another type of service professional and one where it wasn’t a part of a society-wide “men pay money, women pay sex” paradigm.

Unfortunately we do not live in that world. I’m still in favor of legalization because it protects the rights of sex workers and keeps them out of a lot of “something horrible happened but I can’t go to the authorities” situations, but it’s… under protest. I think it’s better than underground sex work, but still not great.

I’d most like to see a world where sex work was an option because sex wasn’t stigmatized and gender-roled, I’d second most like to see no sex work, but my third choice is that sex work at least shouldn’t be unnecessarily dangerous.

(Please note how their “competition” with me as a non-sex-worker is absolutely nowhere on this list, on account of how that makes no sense at all.)

kilo
kilo
10 years ago

David,

Even by his own daffy logic, PWAF is advocating something that he clearly sees as anti-woman — or at least anti “non-prostitute women,” as he so charmingly puts it.

I don’t see how that follows from the quote. The guy really seems to believe that women have a structural advantage. Removing that structural advantage would at first seem to be anti-woman, but it’s not. Just as being against male privilege does not mean being anti-man: getting rid of it would be better for everyone, including men.

Now, you could argue that women don’t have structural advantages. But even then, I’d say claiming women have them is not necessarily being anti-woman, rather ignorance. (My personal opinion would be that there are some advantages, but that they are completely blown out of proportion here.)

I think he’s wrong. I live in a country where prostitution is legal, but it’s not a majority of men who use their services, and I certainly don’t have the impression that women here face a lot competition from sex workers. Men may actually like women as people, and prefer being with them in general as opposed to for sex only, imagine that.

Also, beyond the specifics you are right of course: If that guy is pro-woman, then I am Napoleon Bonaparte.

(More importantly: Holly, these almonds sound fantastic)

Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

Further proof that these guys are vile little creatures who imagine that everyone else is as vile as they.

Moewicus
Moewicus
10 years ago

Regendering this stuff is fun and instructive:

Prostitution is very profitable in terms of money. It is unprofitable in terms of secure access to female resources. Married men get unfettered access and control over female resources, and they don’t even have to put out. Boyfriends get some access to female resources, dependent on how attractive he is and how desperate she is.
Prostitutes offer a dependable, no strings attached experience for women. Legal prostitution reduces the desperation of women, mandating that non-prostitute men have to bring more to the table to secure female resources.

Kilo, it seems pretty clear to me that he thinks men have a structural advantage and are simply restrained from leveraging it fully. What’s a “male resource”? It seems pretty clear he means money, unless he simply means “a male’s resources” in which case he’s writing wrong. So, in his picture, post-legalization, wives now have to up their game in order to get whatever from their husbands. It’s a transactional scheme, money for pussy, in which he is now the demanding consumer. Not only is it anti-woman in the sense that it is based on a dumb view of women as lining up to male ATMs to extract money with their bodies, it is anti-woman in the sense that he thinks “male resources” will command far more power over women after prostitution is legalized. Because they can’t get jobs, amirite?

MissPrism
10 years ago

Imagine someone arguing this:

“Currently, most people go to the pub with their friends, but having friends is shit. They make you buy them birthday presents and tell them jokes and laugh at their jokes and and boring stuff like that. It would be more efficient and cost-effective to hire an actor to go to the pub with you. However, your friends would hate that idea because they fear competition.”

I think in my ideal world sex work would resemble being a hired pub companion, or hired holiday companion. I’m sure there are subsets of people for whom their availability would be a boon, but it would make no sense for most people to hire someone to have mutual fun with, because people like having fun, because that’s what fun is.

Meanwhile, we should do whatever keeps sex workers safe and least likely to be exploited.

MissPrism
10 years ago

PS Holly, how do you make those almonds? They sound amazing.

John D
John D
10 years ago

This guy makes perfect sense to me. Too many almond makes a fellow fat.

Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

http://m.wikihow.com/Make-Chocolate-Coated-Almonds

Use GOOD chocolate–if you use Nestle’s you’ll regret it. We used Ghiardelli and it was very worth it.

Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

Also, I think a guy who would avoid dating or marrying because he’d rather go to sex workers is in a whole ‘nother category than a guy who goes to sex workers sometimes.

MissPrism
10 years ago

Yum! Thank you, Holly!

Joyce
Joyce
10 years ago

Exactly what I was thinking “oldfeminist.” If “married women get unfettered access and control over male resources, and they don’t even have to put out,” then why isn’t he a feminist?

Amused
Amused
10 years ago

I get a kick out of how people like PWAF describe prostitution as an alternative to marriage. In reality, for the kind of men that PWAF is sympathizing with, men who have no love or empathy and treat having a conversation with a woman is a fucking imposition, using prostitutes isn’t an alternative to relationships, but a supplement. They have wives for reproduction, maid services, cooking, laundry and all-around logistical support; mistresses for arm candy; and prostitutes for engaging in certain “taboo” acts and indulging their fetish of commodifying women.

Dracula
Dracula
10 years ago

I think I know the answer to this question, but do these guys just not care about sharing sexual pleasure with their partners, even a tiny little bit? Isn’t giving pleasure at least half the fucking point, and half the fun? I just don’t relate to these dudes. At all.

makomk
makomk
10 years ago

I reckon he’s got this one right up until the point he starts blaming women, actually, which seems to be pretty much typical for MRAs. Legalised prostitution weakens the use of sexual access to women as a way of controlling men, but it’s not women that are harmed by this – they’ve got other things to offer, just like men have more to offer women than money. Take a look at how men have historically been convinced to sign up to the military, and in particular the use of the white feather – would that have worked so well if men weren’t dependent on finding a wife for sex? Except that in this case it’s not women that benefitted, it’s the male leaders that wanted to start a war. (Curiously, the English suffragettes were very heavily involved in handing out white feathers and pushing men off to fight in the First World War; it’s probably why they were in no position to object to more men than women being granted the right to vote after it ended.)

By the way, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the opposite of this from feminists – the idea that making prostitution more illegal will harm the women involved in it, and it’s a good thing – and not just from random internet posters but from lobbyists in a position to do so. (We very nearly got a law passed here in the UK that sex workers considered dangerous to their safety thanks to lobbying from major feminist organisations. They eventually managed to somehow avoid the blockades said lobbyists had put up to stop them talking to politicians about it and get the proposed law amended to be less harmful, but not without a lot of complaints in the press from said organisations about how watering it down was permitting sex slavery. Oh, did I mention they had influences in the media too?)

bexwhitt
bexwhitt
10 years ago

I am ambivalent about prostitution surely the (to be brutal) sex act if one sided in the pleasure department seems pointless to me. That said if a women want to go down that “career path” they should have the right.

Moewicus
Moewicus
10 years ago

I reckon he’s got this one right up until the point he starts blaming women, actually,

Would that be the point where he assumes women go into relationships so they can access “male resources”? Or which one did you have in mind?

oldfeminist
10 years ago

I think the underlying concept here is that we’ve forced them into this. Since wives can take money from the “pool” of “male resources” (his money) without permission, then husbands should be able to take sex from the “pool” of “female resources” (her vajayjay).

If you don’t like that idea, then you have to have prostitutes, or men will explode or something, while all the female resources rot from disuse.

MissPrism, I’ve used the renting friends argument on other blogs. The MRAs et al tend to ignore it but it always amuses me so I hope you’ll continue with it.

cynickal
cynickal
10 years ago

I have to say, it’s much more economical for me to not be a complete asshole to women in general. And by sharing interests (i.e. being somewhat interesting, actually listening and sharing experiences, etc.) I have a definite economic advantage over these MRAs who just want to pay for sex.
Plus, I meet some wonderful people.

Pecunium
10 years ago

Dracula: Pleasure is, so it seems to a lot of these men, a zero-sum game. They do what they want. If that pleases someone else, ok; but not required. If they have to do anything which isn’t exactly what they want (change a diaper, help someone shop for shoes, grab a pack of tampons at the market, adjust they way they like to get their rocks off; in the least little way), they are losing.

Pleasure shared isn’t magniified; unless it’s someone who wants do what they want to do.

So sex with a prostitute isn’t, fundamentally, different from sex with anyone else. If that prostitute isn’t going to want anything in reciprocation, then it’s guaranteed to be at least as good as any regular bout of sex. It would be better if the prostitute was “really into it”, but better (I think) to avoid the risk of having to be unselfish at all.

Emilybites
10 years ago

I think (I may be wrong) that a lot of people like to have sex with other people who actually want to have sex with them, because of mutual lust, rather than because they’ll be remunerated. There are social relationships, and then there are professional ones. Most people want both, or at least one, and recognise that they are different!

It’s like saying no one should have friends, we should all just pay to go to therapists, who don’t expect us to give a toss about them and will listen to us talk about ourselves forever. And then our friends will accept shitty treatment, because if they don’t we will just go and talk to our therapist!

I’m also totally pro a gender-equal, safe, un-coerced sex industry – but that is not what we have, and it creeps me the fuck out to hear that sicko (panorpia?) crapping on about ordering Romanian ass like pizza.

makomk, looks like you’re misrepresenting Clause 14 of the Crime and Policing Act, which criminalises paying for the services of a prostitute who has been coerced, threatened, deceived or subject to force.
Text of the amendment is here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/26/section/14

cynickal
cynickal
10 years ago

Curiously, the English suffragettes were very heavily involved in handing out white feathers and pushing men off to fight in the First World War

Sadly, this has the scent of an Urban Myth.
“It would be wrong to think that the suffragettes were “behind” the white feather movement, or that their participation was more than a small part of a far wider phenomenon.”

And while Christabel Pankhurst called for men to be drafted, “Mrs Pankhurst advocated “War Service for All” – conscription for men and compulsory war work for women.”

it’s probably why they were in no position to object to more men than women being granted the right to vote after it ended.

It is generally assumed that the House of Commons was in favour of supporting the bill, as they were very appreciative of the work done by women in the First World War. The work done by women during the war was vital but its importance to the passing of the bill may have been overstated. Historians such as Martin Pugh believe that the vote in favour of female suffrage was simply a continuation of the way the issue had been moving before the war had started in 1914.

OK, enough tread-jacking.

KathleenB
KathleenB
10 years ago

“War Service for All” – conscription for men and compulsory war work for women.”

I was under the impression that just about everybody (in Britain) who was physically able did something to help the war efforts – Land Girls, VADs, women and older men taking jobs that were normally held by younger men, bandage rolling and sock knitting, etc. Of course, by the end, there wasn’t much choice – nearly every man but the very old or very disabled were tossed into the meat grinder, backs against the wall, stiff upper lip and all that.

MissPrism
10 years ago

Oldfeminist, I thought I’d seen something similar somewhere before. I probably sorta-nicked it from you at Pandagon, so, thanks! I know Amanda likes a “playing music together” analogy but somehow I find the friends thing works better.

ozymandias42
10 years ago

If sex work was safe and legal and non-coerced, there are times I’d go to a sex worker (for instance, for casual sex in the middle of a dry spell or long-distance relationship when I don’t have enough time to recruit a new fuckbuddy, or for group sex if I have a partner who’s monogamous), and I’m female. Just saying.

Dracula
Dracula
10 years ago

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I don’t understand why anyone would avail themselves of the services of sex workers, I just don’t get the “All the sex that ever happens ever is a financial transaction, and women only benefit from it monetarily.” crowd.

marc2020
marc2020
10 years ago

Once again another supposed Men’s Rights Activist turns me into nothing more than a set of genitals without a shred of loyalty or empathy. Men are not a monolith asshole we don’t all think the same way you do or a motivated by the same things.

For the record I am pro sex work and would like to see it legalised so that the people who engage in it can work in a safe environment free of violence and intolerance not because I want to stick it to women because women are not my enemy.

mythago
10 years ago

@oldfeminist: it’s amazing doublethink, isn’t it? They want women to be financially dependent on men, but then they get angry at the idea that women want their money.

It should come as no surprise that from a sex worker’s POV, these guys are the worst customers. Instead of being happy that they’re making a fair exchange, they’re bitterly angry that they still have to pay for female company, and it shows in every way.

Shora
10 years ago

I feel like we’re missing the forest for the trees here.

Women who are sex workers…. are also women. If something is good/bad for “non-prostitute women” (insofar as such women are a monolith) it would stand to reason that that thing would be equally good/bad for women who are sex workers (insofar as such women in particular and women in general are a monolith).

Anything else I have to say others have already said better 😛

Raoul
Raoul
10 years ago

@ TemporaryName, 9/26 “If I’m allowed to have old-fashioned values (and rather than allowed, some MRA would prefer the values be forced), why aren’t men allowed to have compatible values? I would hate to be a MRA because their movement is just so bossy and inconsistant in what it’s trying to boss you to be!”

MRA nothing, that’s just what it takes to be a man.

Consider the ultimate rite of masculinity, boot camp. You spend 8 weeks at the mercy of men who are bossy and inconsistent to the extreme, and you learn quickly that living up to their every whim is the key to becoming capable, disciplined, confident and tough enough to wage war.

(I’m not apologizing for the status quo here, btw, just pointing it out.)

Polliwog
Polliwog
10 years ago

I hear that phrase in my head to the tune of the Rolling Stones’ “Honky Tonk Women.” Something like…

I met a girl and took her out to dinner
And I insisted I would pay the check.
She said goodnight, and then she took a cab home –
What’s up with that? Don’t I deserve some sex?!

It’s the no-o-o-on prostitute women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the MRA blues!

Brandon
Brandon
10 years ago

If you want love and someone to care about you then no…prostitutes aren’t going to help you.

If you just want sex and only sex, prostitutes could be cheaper, simpler and less time consuming.

cynickal
cynickal
10 years ago

If you just want sex and only sex, prostitutes could be cheaper, simpler and less time consuming.

I must be an Alpha, because this is not my life’s experience. And it’s been significanly less since I got over myself and left my NiceGuy™ behaviors behind.

mythago
10 years ago

@Shora – which is why these guys are also such assholes to sex workers. Instead of “bitch is insisting I buy her dinner before she gives up the goods” it’s “bitch is insisting I pay her before she gives up the goods”.

Raincitygirl
Raincitygirl
10 years ago

I add my voice to the chorus who say sex work should be decriminalized if that makes life safer for sex workers.

As for PWAF, I’m starting to think that he’s just really bad in bed. Now, I’m queer, so I don’t have very much experience in the heterosexual relationship department. But I have straight friends who are married to or in relationships with men, and these women WANT to have sex with their husbands/boyfriends. Sex isn’t something they give up grudgingly so their husband/boyfriend won’t leave them, they enjoy sex with their partner for its own sake. Maybe if PWAF re-analyzes what he’s doing in the bedroom, his next girlfriend won’t have to be guilted into occasional sex, but will want it. And then PWAF won’t have to spend money on prostitutes. It would be a win-win situation!

BigKitty
BigKitty
10 years ago

@ Polliwog – I am still LOL’ing! Would you like your Internet plain, or chocolate-covered?

magdelyns
10 years ago

“…I don’t feel threatened in the least by prostitutes, because their clients and the guys I would be interested in do not overlap…” – Temporary Name.

Having worked as a prostitute, I have observed plenty of decent, married guys buying sex. If you’ve never stood on a street corner, you might be amazed at who is prowling, circling the block like sharks.

footnotegirl
footnotegirl
10 years ago

I believe sex work should be legalized. Basically for me it boils down to the fact that no one, and especially not the state, should be able to tell a person the reasons for which they are allowed to use their own body. If an adult freely consents to sex, then who the hells business is it if they freely consent due to love, pleasure, or a wad of bills? Why a person does something should not change the legality of it. If it’s legal to do for free, it should be legal to do for pay.
I maintain however that procuring, aka pimping, should remain illegal.
Again I am astounded at how very much the MRA’s really seem to hate men. They clearly find their fellow man, and perhaps themselves, to be vile, emotionless, honorless, uncaring scum who suffer from a severe and untreatable lack of control. I have a much higher opinion of the male sex in general. Most men I know look for more than economically efficient sex from a long term partner.

Polliwog
Polliwog
10 years ago

BigKitty: Mmm, chocolate-covered internet. Glad you enjoyed. 🙂

Pecunium
10 years ago

Raoul: MRA nothing, that’s just what it takes to be a man.

Consider the ultimate rite of masculinity, boot camp. You spend 8 weeks at the mercy of men who are bossy and inconsistent to the extreme, and you learn quickly that living up to their every whim is the key to becoming capable, disciplined, confident and tough enough to wage war.

Horseshit. I did boot camp. The men (and women) who were training me, and my fellows were bossy, they weren’t inconsistent. That, for many, was the biggest problem. They weren’t ready to be consistent in themselves, and so they failed to be consistent in response to the requirements.

Waging war (which is a far from purely male behavior) isn’t about that, it’s about being willing to trust your fellows, and for them to be able to trust you in return.

VoiP
VoiP
10 years ago

“…I don’t feel threatened in the least by prostitutes, because their clients and the guys I would be interested in do not overlap…” – Temporary Name.

Having worked as a prostitute, I have observed plenty of decent, married guys buying sex. If you’ve never stood on a street corner, you might be amazed at who is prowling, circling the block like sharks.

Not to mention that Temporary Name’s post stigmatizes sex workers as well, I think. If only pathetic, awful, creeeepy dudes go to prostitutes, then it must be a pathetic, awful, creeeepy thing to do.

Polliwog
Polliwog
10 years ago

In fairness, Temporary Name didn’t actually say that she thought guys who go to prostitutes were pathetic/creepy/etc., just that they wouldn’t be compatible with her. I can imagine a fair number of reasons that could be true besides “because sex work is creepy.” I mean, I wouldn’t be compatible with a gay dude, what with being a woman and all, but that doesn’t mean I think gay dudes are creepy.

Temporary Name
Temporary Name
10 years ago

VoiP, please tell me where I described anyone as “pathetic, awful, creepy” as I am assuming your italics are to imply that your words somehow come from me.

Yeah, I have my own values, but they only apply to me and anyone I partner with. By no means would I force them on someone else, but why should values that I believe in for myself and are comfortable for me be taken away from me, because you are projecting and reading what you want to read regardless of what the actual words are?

Here’s an example–I am anti-abortion, but pro-legalized abortion. I would never abort and believe it is morally wrong, however I believe forcing pregnancy on another woman is a worse wrong, and that because there is no way I can ever know anyone else’s exact circumstances, I am in no position to ever judge anyone. Additionally, I know that I am not a moral authority, and only have the right to decide for myself.

I am a Christian, and I believe that does not make it my place to judge anyone. Rather, I am to live as morally as I can and to offer support and compassion to any and every one by virtue of shared humanity.

To clarify, I will further explain my comment:

“I don’t feel threatened in the least by prostitutes, because their clients and the guys I would be interested in do not overlap.”

I have very specific views on intimacy and what *I personally* am comfortable with. While I have no problem with other people enjoying their sexuality to whatever degree they wish (and am happy for them so long as it makes them happy, have no trouble discussing their sex lives with them), I believe that I also have the right to my own comfort and preferences in sexuality and intimacy. This is something I seek in a partner, as I believe in sexual compatibility.

I believe the way that you characterized my comment was unfair and needlessly judgmental. If there is something that you find questionable about something I have said, wouldn’t it be easier to directly say what has set you off and why, so that I may address it? Isn’t that a lot more civil and honest than needlessly putting harsh words like “pathetic, awful, creepy” in my mouth?