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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
I’ll just add my vote to the rest of those here who are for legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution — basically whatever solution there is that’s best for the sex workers. Since I don’t believe PWAF’s voodoo sex economics I don’t think this would be a bad thing for “non-prostitute women.” Or “non-prostitute men” for that matter.
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 😛
@ 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.)
I really want the phrase “non-prostitute women” to catch on. I’m going to try to work it into as many conversations as possible.
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!
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.
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.
@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”.
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!
@ Polliwog – I am still LOL’ing! Would you like your Internet plain, or chocolate-covered?
“…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.
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.
BigKitty: Mmm, chocolate-covered internet. Glad you enjoyed. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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?