[TRIGGER WARNING: Discussion of child rape]
Tom Martin is one of the most prominent Men’s Rights Activists in the UK. He’s best known for a failed lawsuit he launched against the London School of Economics, charging the school’s gender studies program with, you guessed it, misandry. The case was thrown out of court this March, and Martin celebrated his defeat by calling a lot of people whores on Twitter and, I am proud to say, in the comments here at Man Boobz.
While Martin, known perhaps ironically as @sexismbusters on Twitter, is clearly more famous in the UK than he is here in the states, this peculiar crusader against what he sees as sexism has been celebrated (and his defeat in court mourned) by numerous Men’s Rights sites on this side of the pond. He’s been discussed many times on the Men’s Rights subreddit, where one supporter declared:
And he’s gotten write-ups on an assortment of other MR sites from The Spearhead to MensActivism.org to one Man Boobz favorite, the now-defunct What Men Are Saying About Women. On the website of the National Coalition for Men, one enthusiastic commenter gushed:
Finaly a real man with balls !!! Not like the rest of us . Tom is my hero .
But the Men’s Rights site that has given Martin the most support has been A Voice for Men, which featured Martin on one of its “radio” shows, reposted an article on Martin’s crusade from his website that seems to have been written by Martin himself (in the third person), offered updates on his lawsuit, and even publicized a recent public debate of his in England. The site has also encouraged people to donate to Martin’s legal fund.
One wonders what these supporters will make of some of the strange and awful things Martin has been saying in the comments here on Man Boobz in recent days. (There is no question that it is really him; he confirmed his identity earlier by emailing me from the account associated with his website Sexismbusters.org, and anyone skeptical of any of this is invited to contact him directly through his website.)
Most of the comments he posted here during his first commenting binge were rather risibly misogynist, frequently punctuated with his favorite epithet “whore,” a designation he feels is an appropriate one for 97% of all women and (he had recently added) for 98% of Man Boobzers of either gender. You can see here or here for numerous examples of Martin’s wit and wisdom – including his argument that hard chairs are discriminatory towards men and his now famous declaration that “female penguins are whores.”
His more recent comments, though, haven’t been funny in the slightest. Martin’s new obsession? Child prostitutes – and why they aren’t victims so much as victimizers, willing participants in an activity that makes them big money. Let me put another TRIGGER WARNING here. This is some of the most repellant material I have ever featured on man Boobz.
Here’s Martin’s opening statement on the subject:
The latest establishment scam in the UK, is to describe child prostitutes as “vulnerable children groomed for sexual exploitation”, then talk about them being “passed around” etc, without mention of the fact that these young people agreed to be whores, and are getting paid for it.
In a followup, he elaborated on this logic:
“Yeah, she offered me a job as a prostitute abroad, which would involve me receiving lots of money for taking cock, so I accepted, became a prostitute, and therefor, according to the official fem definition, this makes me a sex slave”.
Grow up!
Even a 10 year old knows, if someone is paying you for sex, that makes you a whore.
And when he talks about ten year olds here, he means this literally; in his mind, trafficked ten year old children aren’t really victims, but economic actors making an economic choice:
I stand by my statement, that child prostitutes know what they are doing, and therefore deserve to be called prostitutes, not victims.
A progressive European country (either Holland or one of the Scandinavian countries, I remember hearing), introduced in the late 90s, the legal principle of no arbitrary minimum age for consent, rather, the legal requirement to ascertain whether lawful sex had taken place was to establish whether the child or young person ‘understands the meaning of consent’ …
Now, if a ten year old is for instance [specific sexual act redacted] for money up front, then there is very much less question whether that whore understands the meaning of consent or not.
In another comment, Martin suggests that ten-year-olds who have been the victims of what some people insist on calling “real rape” would be offended by anyone thinking that ten-year-old prostitutes suffer from rape – when, after all, the child prostitutes have “agreed” to it.
From the perspective of a child who has actually been raped by an adult, how must it seem, to hear the victim-feminist establishment conflate child rape with child prostitution? The raped child remembers having no choice about participating in the sexual activity, of being forced, and then is asked to consider his or her fate or level of agency as similar or the same as that of a child who marketed them self for sex to an adult, took payment, then performed the act.
I don’t think the average 10 year old genuine rape victim would buy the manboobz style analysis that all child prostitution is rape … .
Questions of genuine agency are complicated, but not complicated enough to pass a 10 year old genuine rape victim’s bullshitometer I posit.
Oh, Martin doesn’t actually think ten year olds should be prostitutes. He thinks they should wait a few years, until they’re at least 14.
Should child prostitution from the ages of 13 up be legal?
Nope. I think that prostitution is a potentially dangerous profession for which a basic qualification in health and safety be required, like an NVQ – and that kind of course would not be attainable until after the minimum of secondary school years are completed, so aged 14, 15, 16, 17 or even 18 or more depending on the country.
The real problem, in his mind, is that young girls try to enter into the business when they should be in school:
States with child prostitution problems should be forced to get these children back into schools to complete their education, and child prostitutes who persist should be treated as school truants, a misdemeanor, and given the carrot and stick approach to get them back on the straight and narrow or go to young offenders institutions. If they want to be prostitutes when they’re old enough, then they can go to the careers advise officer, where the pros and cons of the profession can be laid out, and an application for the training course and license can be given.
Martin mocks the very notion that child prostitutes are being exploited:
Imagine you caught your underage 15 year old daughter on the game, what would you say to her?
“Okay darling, obviously you played no part whatsoever in choosing to be a prostitute yourself, so mummy’s going to help catch the nasty pimp who put you up to this, because what you need to learn is when 15 year old girls accidentally suck cocks for money, they should be compensated, with a bit of victims of crime compensation, and, not forgetting, the original £12 cock-sucking bonanza from the punter. That’s right sweety. Double bubble time. Pass me the phone. Now how does this thing work?”
Or… would you ground the whore for 6 months until she passes all her GCSEs?
Well, given that approximately 98% of manboobzers are whores themselves, I’m guessing you’re probably going to want to blame it all on MRAs.
So prostitution should be legal. But since prostitutes are very bad, they should pay high taxes for the privilege of plying their trade, to keep them poor and in order to repay society for the damage they do:
Prostitutes need to be taxed and licensed so heavily, rendering the profession a relatively poor way of making money.
Anyone who practices as a prostitute without the necessary qualification and license, can go to young offenders institute/jail – just like any other persistent illegal unlicensed trader would.
Anyone working on the sly as an escort, should be hunted down by the taxwoman, and if caught, given a huge bill for tax evasion, as well as a fine, and prison for not having a license. Unlicensed tax-evading prostitutes should be hunted down (which would be easy enough).
Anyone choosing prostitution should pay the highest taxes, and know why those taxes are so high – because of the damage prostitution does to the prostitutes and their customers and their environment and the society.
In a followup comment, Martin sees a silver lining in the form of all the tax revenues that prostitution will bring in:
If licensed hookers pay for a massive license fee and heavy taxes, then some of that money can be ring-fenced to research how best to get women (and girls) to renounce prostitution in all its forms, because let’s face it, a lot of housewhores and princess wannabes could do with a little economic activity-inducing work ethic therapy themselves.
Meanwhile, the customers of underage prostitutes – in other words, the child rapists – should be treated gingerly:
[M]en who pay money to have sex with child prostitutes should not be criminalized – but taken out of circulation and treated compassionately for their condition. I’ve heard that most criminal activity peaks with testosterone levels, in the late teens, but paedophillia is the only crime that increases in frequency as these men get older, indicating a growing pathology for them rather than just a typical immature criminal act.
He offers this final summing up of his twisted argument:
[P]edophiles who pay children for sex are not really rapists, because the child consents, then performs the act, indicating they understand the nature of the contract. The elder is still a pedophiles, but the child prostitute is still a prostitute.
If the child is enslaved – it’s rape, or too young or stupid to know what he or she’s doing – rape. But poor, and in need of food? Not rape. A choice. Unwilling to do other hard labour paying 9 times less than the prostitution route? Not rape. A choice.
He then extends his argument to the rest of the alleged 97% of women who, in his mind, are whores:
Whatever your age, follow the golden rule, of never taking money for sex, then prostitution will be eradicated. Only the prostitute can stop charging for sex.
And of course, that means rejecting courtship gifts, engagement gifts, marriage gifts, divorce gifts, and government largess also.
I don’t think many of you are ready to renounce prostitution in all its forms. …
I know a whore when I see one.
He even returns momentarily to his earlier assertion that female penguins are whores:
Someone or other here said I was anthropomorphising human behaviour onto penguin behaviour by calling penguins whores or something.
But the point is, being a whore, is an animalistic trait, that human females should not need to resort to, given they’re at the top of the fucking food chain already. Google “nuptial gifts” and you can read studies about various animals granting sex to those males who provide the most food, or even the most glittery non-edible trinkets etc, or in the case of penguins, rocks to build nests and shelter with.
I’m saying women are better than penguins, or at least would be if they renounced prostitution in all its forms.
I’m sure the women of the world will be happy to hear that Mr. Martin thinks they are potentially better than penguins.
I doubt many of Mr. Martin’s American supporters are familiar with his elaborate apologia for child rape. I would like to invite Man Boobz readers to show this post, or at least some of the more repellant quotations from it, to the proprietors of the various MRA blogs and MRA forums I have mentioned above.
I wonder if any of his supporters will be willing to renounce him publicly once they know what he has said here – and apparently in some recent public debates as well. Surely no legitimate “human rights movement” would want to be associated with anyone who spouts filth like this.
Tom, weren’t you studying to be a gender studies professional? I mean “studying” to be a gender studies professional. Well, really you were being a professional victim, I guess, albeit an inept one.
“In addition to their greater likelihood of exchanging sex for alcohol or drugs, early initiators also engaged in higher risk behaviors related to alcohol and drugs. They were three times more likely than late initiators to report a problem with alcohol, and 2.4 times more likely to report a problem with drugs. They were 1.55 times more likely to have had sex while drunk, and 2.56 more likely to have engaged in sex while on drugs. They were 2.67 times more likely to have shared needles for the purposes of injection drug use. Early initiators were also more likely to have experienced workrelated violence. They were twice as likely to experience violence at the hands of clients, nine times more likely to experience violence at the hands of police, 5.4 times more likely to experience violence at the hands of strangers, and three times more likely to experience violence at the hands of an employer. Given the circumstances early initiators find themselves in, it is not surprising that they were also 2.12 times more likely to have experienced suicidal thoughts during two weeks prior to their interview.
Read more: http://www.readperiodicals.com/201010/2337139671.html#b#ixzz20jqoQy7S”
From Tom Martin’s link. The bit he quoted earlier? Was from a boy who started when he was 7. It still sounds horrific.
Tom Martin, an MRA who really cares about men and boys! (not really)
Cliff:
Yeah, The First Joe compared it to being a child soldier, which is another coerced choice. No human action is made in a vacuum, and sometimes all the choices you have are really, really shitty. But Tom’s entire idea of how economic interaction works is context-free and just…broken. He thinks that if a woman ever received any kind of gift, she’s a “whore,” but human societies are structured around gift exchange and interpersonal relationships.
If I tried to come up with a reductio ad absurdam argument to discredit the implications of libertarianism, I could not fake a worse argument than Tom Martin’s.
Just a reminder at this point in the Tom-frisking — he also said the adults raping these kids should be treated with compassion. But the kids are whores.
So this — “Was from a boy who started when he was 7.”? Kid’s a whore, his “clients” need compassion though.
And Tom is claiming we have to renounce “whoring it”? I’d laugh, but it’s too sickening, wouldn’t want to spurt stomach acid onto my screen.
it’s as if she’s suggesting that, whilst this is a choice that is made (in desperately shitty circumstances), it’s not a desirable choice for a child.
no, i must be reading that wrong.
/sarcasm
@Argenti – I’m not going to get sidetracked into what is or isn’t the currently politically correct term for “X” or what I think of PC, except to say:
I’m old enough to remember that when I was a kid they had recently changed the term “cripple” to “spastic” and when cruel little kids took that up as a taunt they changed it again.. and again… Likewise “idiot” became “retarded / remedial” and the kids at school started calling each other REMMIE!! so they changed it again and again…
And after all that- in the UK “special”* can now be used as an insult….
PC keeps running away, cruel humans keep up effortlessly.
(*Derived from “special needs”)
p.s. argenti, thanks, i’ll need to practise that tag to get it locked in to my brain
“If I tried to come up with a reductio ad absurdam argument to discredit the implications of libertarianism, I could not fake a worse argument than Tom Martin’s.”
I keep thinking he’s a Poe, and then remembering the lawsuit and 37,000 pound bill.
Tom, seriously man, wtf is so terrible about (adult) sex workers?
That doesn’t mean we have to go out of our way to be cruel once we’re told that something is hurtful.
I dunno if he’s exactly libertarian? Because libertarians are generally cool with sex work as part of the free market. He’s more just a reductio ad absurdum of context-free whorephobia.
BigMomma — no problem on the html
The First Joe — you know it’s used as an insult and use it anyways? I guess there’s no point debating it then. (I will point out that letting language fall to the assholes of society is suck-tastic though — cruel people will just use the new term is basically saying “fuck it, let the bullies be bullies, it isn’t worth fighting them”)
If child soldiers are forced into it, then it’s slavery. Even if they are volunteering for a paid wage, it should still be illegal to miss your minimum of schooling, and therefore illegal.
Pedophiles should be removed from society and given compassionate treatment for their illness.
Child prostitutes should be put back in school, or if repeat offenders, prosecuted for attempting to profit by preying on the mentally ill pedo population.
Pedos have an incentive not to re-offend – to keep their liberty, and avoid a secure treatment unit.
Child prostitutes should face a choice between their freedom (apart from when at school), or, if they continue avoiding school to go whoring, then incarceration and school.
The imprisonment of child prostitutes happens in countries where the state does not have the resources to make the incarceration an effective exercise in rehabilitation, but Western countries have those resources to make it work.
Also, if someone reaches the necessary minimum age to get a license to pass the exam and pay the fee and become a tax paying prostitute, that’s fine, but the general public who might be thinking about marrying for instance should have a right to know if that woman or man is a professional sex worker – no secretly being a whore. There needs to be a registar of prostitutes, so people can check their new date isn’t whoring for money, and creating all that extra emotional and health risk for the wellbeing of the relationship and any offspring.
If people think whoring is so fucking great, then they should have to declare themselves a whore.
The idea that all economic interaction should give value for value received otherwise you’re a leech kinda smells libertarian to me, but I really don’t know. I mean, any germ of a coherent idea is immediately smothered under a thick coating of PUNISH THE FILTHY SLUTS WHOM I NEVERTHELESS DESIRE OH GOD MAKE IT STOP, so “thinking” is probably not the word we should use for what’s going on here.
Honestly, I am shocked that an MRA even showed up to object to Tom’s child rape advocacy.
Children should be prosecuted for preying on pedophiles???
You CANNOT be a real person who breathes the same oxygen as human beings. I will not believe this.
Why is non-coerced, adult prostitution bad? Why do we need to shame sex workers? What detrimental effects does sex work have on the offspring of the sex worker? And why do you claim to care about the children only here, and not where you’re OK with child rape?
@cliff, that’s where i am at with this dude too.
@Argenti – I would hope that reading it in context of my post, my attitude would be protective towards the hypothetical man with learning difficulties* being ripped off in my hypothetical example. Feel free to mentally back-edit that term in there.
*this is the currently PC term in the UK.
My argument that changing the term, rather than reclaiming the word itself is not actually fighting, but running away from the problem (which is that cruel people are endlessly inventive in their cruelty, often when they fail to be inventive in anything else).
I know that almost everyone disagrees with me on this, and frankly, it’s not an argument I can be arsed to explore further right now (tired). I generally use “learning difficulties” in most conversation now anyway…
Cliff, here’s a post by a woman whose libertarian father tried to have her emancipated when she was a child so she could work for him and pay rent to live at his house. It’s not as extreme, but it definitely has the same flavor: all human interactions reduced to economics, it’s all context-free.
(And any demands on the man by a woman or girl are immediately ZOMG THE WORST THING EVER, but misogyny isn’t inherent to the libertarian ideology, so it may just be coincidental that both this chick’s dad and Tom Martin hate women.)
I know that there are people with misguided morals. I can believe that there are people out there with no morals.
But I’m having trouble with a guy who appears to have opposite morals. Punishing children for preying on pedophiles… Christ almighty, how does a human mind even get there?
@Cliff Pervocracy:
“You CANNOT be a real person who breathes the same oxygen as human beings. I will not believe this.”
Unbalanced individuals are willing to say or do just about anything for attention. It’s all just a baiting tactic to keep people enraged and engaged.
I do think there are people who are just plain old evil, not mentally unbalanced, not mistaken, not misguided, just plain old evil.
Cliff, here’s a post by a woman whose libertarian father tried to have her emancipated when she was a child so she could work for him and pay rent to live at his house. It’s not as extreme, but it definitely has the same flavor: all human interactions reduced to economics, it’s all context-free.
Wow. Ron Swanson lives?
@Bostonian – and I’m a libertarian too. So I disagree with Tom twice on principle alone, that’s not even getting into how I feel about his BS.
@Cliff – yeah, WTFF!!??.
@Tom – “children ‘preying’ on pedos???” Fuuuuuucccckkk offf!! You fucking bellend!
A central plank of Libertarianism = the fair contract.
You can’t have a fair contract with an incompetent party. Not possible.
Any such contract would be invalid, and the excercise of the advantage thereof = criminal e.g. theft, rape, slavery etc.
So e.g. the rent-seeking Dad (assuming the daughter was under the age of majority = incompetent to contract as an adult) is not a Libertarian, but a bullshitter. As well as being a shitty Dad.