[Trigger Warning: Child rape]
Tom Martin is doubling down on his own reprehensibleness. You may recall the utterly repellant things the prominent British Men’s Rights Activist – he’s the guy who sued the London School for Economics for “misandry” and got his case thrown out – has been saying in the comments here about child prostitutes, and which I highlighted in a recent post.
Now he has returned with some even worse comments. Here’s his “solution” to the problem of child prostitution. (Emphasis mine.)
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.
In another comment, Martin suggests that child prostitutes are economic free agents just maximizing their profit potential:
The child prostitutes say they’re not victims.
And the fact they take money off a punter for sex, says it’s not really rape.
Pimps are not controllers, they are in truth merely agents for the prostitute, so don’t blame them exclusively either.
I’m calling manboobzers human whores. A trait shared with animals, but one humans have the cognitive powers, awaredness, and choice to transcend.
If your 10 year old doesn’t know what a whore is, but is one, then something’s wrong with that kid’s education. Perhaps they’ve been reading manboobz articles and taking Cuntrelle literally in between poundings.
Tom Martin: Worst person in the world?
(Note: Tom Martin has confirmed that this is indeed him posting comments here on Man Boobz by sending an email from the account associated with his website Sexismbusters.org. Also, he’s retweeted quotes from his comments here. Contact him via his web site if you are skeptical.)
Sorry jumbofisch, my point was to make fun of Toms fixation with one particular word and his lack of creativity.
I can see that I’ve tossed sex workers under the bus too, and that’s really thoughtless of me. My apologies.
This would be totally awesome. Actually, it would be hysterical if there were a lot filtered words that were changed to tasty snacks/baked goods.
What little we see of Asgard is a macho, chauvinistic warrior culture, most likely with all the attendant misogyny thereof. Sif is the Jackie Robinson of female Asgardian warriors, and when Odin is incapacitated, it’s his son and not his wife who takes temporary command. Thor (who’s apparently more feminist than most Asgardians anyway, in that he supported Sif’s candidacy to become a warrior) is able to avoid the worst of this. Perhaps Loki, in his attempts to be “more Asgardian than the Asgardians”, fell right into it.
Not that his fall through the wormhole, association with Thanos, or utter contempt for anything not-Asgardian did anything to help matters.
I interpreted Loki’s insult as being less sexist (more because I don’t think he differentiates between male and female humans–he hates us all) and more manipulative. He’s trying to upset her, and using misogynist tropes to do so.
But yeah, I could see where others could see it as over-the-top sexism.
@jumbofish
I’m sorry too if my use of the W word offended you or any sex workers. I kind of snapped last night reading Tom’s incessant use of the word, and I was just trying to make the point that the word was overused.
In terms of getting around the filter, I think we were just trying to point out that there were easy enough ways for Tom to avoid it, but he was more interested in using that as an excuse to run away.
I think Tom’s visit has permanently altered our associations with that word. I for one won’t use it any more.
@ Jumbofish–yeah, I think we all got a little too flippant. I’m sorry.
David’s change to the spam filter does seem to have banished Tom, so apparently he’s unable to construct sentences without that particular word. Or maybe he finally went to sleep.
Vocaloid brain bleach.
NWO — to answer the main question of your comment, I don’t think any or us (or at least not many of us) were aghast at the idea of licensing sex workers — it was the in detail tirades about what acts children perform and how there are no trafficked sex workers, anywhere, period, and how the adult “clients” of child sex workers should be treated compassionately, but the children punished…etc etc
As for why children are allowed to be sexual with other children, and not adults, the problem isn’t the sex itself, but the power difference. Should I pull up CT’s laws on this again and remind you that some states do have age brackets? That is, 14 & 16 = ok; 16 & 18 = ok; 14 & 18 =/= ok.
Oh and you want that analogy about licensing to be comparing sex work to skilled professionals, not cars.
“I’d just like to go over the paragraph you supplied from the americanciminallawreview, whatever the hell that is. It’s really just an opinion piece is all it is.”
Links to various wingnut sites, as frequently supplied by NWO – totally legit.
Links to the nation’s premier journal of criminal law – WTF is this shit?
Cassandra — NWO doesn’t believe in gov’n data, he actually had a comment where he thought it was just hilarious of him to say he was mocking me, and laughing at my gullibility for citing gov’n sources. I, of course, found this goddamned hilarious.
Oh wait…is “goddamned hilarious” an insult to him, personally? His whole rant on that one lost me somewhere around calling all of us Jews…
NWO provides links? I only get BRAINFAX (and assdata) out of him…
TRUBRAINFAX, I really don’t know why I’m so horrid at this, I’m just gonna go fetch some more brain bleach so I can feel like I’m contributing until I have something useful to add.
http://youtu.be/oScCgxuId98
Slavey’s just jealous of all the attention TM was receiving. Fans, they are fickle after all.
@Argenti Aertheri
But you didn’t answer my question.
A 15 year old girl can’t drive a car, she’ll be punished if she does.
A 15 year old girl can’t drink she’ll be punished if she does. If someone over 21 buys her alcohol they’ll be punished more harshly but she’ll still be punished.
So if prostitution were legal and a 15 year girl did trade sex for money should she be punished? She knew it was wrong but did it anyway.
Say prostitution is legalized for everyone 18 and up. Are you telling me only the person buying sex from a girl under 18 is a criminal? What’s to stop every girl at any age from selling sex for money if they are never punished for doing so? If I say are you over 18 and she says yes, then what? Is the man still guilty? What should I do, card her? I wouldn’t know a legit card from a one printed on a home printer. Shall I guess the age?
Do you see what I mean? The punishment has to go to the person who with full knowlege broke the law. Even underaged people are punished for every other crime. Why should selling sex be hands off, they did no wrong? An underaged girl knows she can’t drink, drive, ect, but when it comes to sex she’s too stupid to up from down?
“Teehee, I’m just a girl, I didn’t know selling sex for money was wrong.” I mean c’mon.
Well Slavey, if it makes you feel better, Tom completely ignored me too, and never answered any of my questions, so it was pretty much like debating with you. 🙂
Slavey, I know you’re concerned now that there’s a new shithead in town and all our attention’s going to him, but you can’t just copy his schtick.
NWO — you’ve basically decided the debate is really about how minors who commit crimes should be treated…which is fine, but not remotely what we’re upset at Tom over (did anyone argue that minors selling sex shouldn’t be treated as truant from school? Or was it that the places this tends to happen, the places he was citing don’t have mandatory schooling in the first place?)
But yeah, you’d treat them as any other truant minor, and that entire system needs massive work. It shouldn’t count as truancy, in general, if the parents are so neglectful that clean clothes are not available, for example. We send kids to juvie anyways though, which is BS, and irrelevant to sex work (as Pecunium would put it “but I digress”)
This — “What should I do, card her? I wouldn’t know a legit card from a one printed on a home printer. ” — is BS though, that’s like saying that you can’t tell if your mechanic’s license is valid or not (it’s called due diligence dude, and yep, it’s on the client to perform it).
Anyone not NWO know if — “A 15 year old girl can’t drink she’ll be punished if she does. If someone over 21 buys her alcohol they’ll be punished more harshly but she’ll still be punished.” — is even true? I know “buying cigarettes for minors will cost you” but afaik the minor is going to get lectured, not arrested…
Slavey, child prostitution is not underage drinking, or shoplifting cigarettes, or whatever hijinx you want to come up with. Children don’t start hooking out of a sense of rebellion or a need to be naughty. Pretending that being a prostitute is on the same psychological, physical, and social level as getting high with your friends down by the reservoir is really not on.
When I read your first comment, I googled “why do people choose to become prostitutes” and came up with several iterations of “they mostly don’t CHOOSE it”. Here’s a link to a non-profit organization who know a little more about people who are prostitutes than I do:
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/
There’s not a lot of tee-heeing in selling sex before you’re old enough to actually want sex.
And keep in mind that Tom Martin was complaining about 10 year old children. Not 15, or whatever your prey base is. Ten.
Remember when your niece and nephews were 10? Picture them in that situation, and re-think your position.
Oh and NWO, you missed that having sex with minors would still be illegal, so it wouldn’t really matter that the minor was an unlicensed sex worker, because minors cannot consent.
So yeah, I think minors selling sex should be gotten back into the school system, but not as punishment for being an unlicensed sex worker <.>
lowquacks — I realize he just wants the attention, but he disgusts me less than Tom does (well until he gets back to how mature teenagers are that is, but a hypothetical discussion on what licensing sex work would look like? I see that as a nice distraction)
“Remember when your niece and nephews were 10? Picture them in that situation, and re-think your position.”
Seriously, you’d want them sent to live with a relative who’d actually ensure they had food and clothing and whatnot, and that they went to school, right? And barring that option, into a (hopefully fixed by then) foster care system?
Actually, to be fair, Slavey was on about teenage (and preteen) girls enticing older men with their teen sexiness long before Martin came around. Slavey’s complaint was that he would not legally be permitted to have sex with teenaged girls–who, naturally, would be throwing themselves at him–due to the misandric tyranny of age of consent laws.
His refrain then later switched to decrying teen and preteen girls who sexually tease men (by, you know, existing) but refuse to have sex with any man who desires them. Oh, and he hates sluts, too, though I’m not sure if this includes or excludes women who are willing to have sex with him.
Seriously, it must be awfully confusing to be inside his head.
The underage PEOPLE (btw, NWO, I understand that in general we can talk about this as a gendered issue, but you’ve really gone overboard in erasing the boys from this picture altogether.) “entice” clients by simply walking down the street. The cars approach them and ask if they are working. So stop living in a fantasy world.
Also, it’s been explained the situation the kids are in, so you’re not asking with any honesty. I’ll post a link though. My favorite part of this is how she gets a cheeseburger at the end of the day.
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/06/131757019/youth-radio-trafficked-teen-girls-describe-life-in-the-game (part 1, listen to part 2 also.)
(Use of the word trafficked here one: all underage people in this situation are called trafficked, and two they are not on their own home street corner, and rely on others.)
It’s already been explained to you that generally speaking the kid does not get the money from the transaction, and the second general statement I’ll make is that survival work means they are coerced by survival, and might “keep” the money and buy food or drugs. When you’re addicted to drugs, your body is in fight or flight, except it won’t let you flee. One feels as though they are taking drugs to keep alive. So how about the folks that know good and well that the person is homeless and addicted? AND they were just standing there on a certain street? How are the buyers of sex being pressured here? They are not. They are being pressured in the opposite direction, one via the law (the type of prostitution that could “accidentally” involve a child is illegal almost everywhere, -the street kind) , and two a BULK of these men are married and have steady girlfriends that don’t know what they are up to.
There was a debate about these issues in Britain about twenty years ago when the then Director of Public Prosecutions was caught soliciting sex from a street prostitute.
He naturally offered his resignation immediately (and quite rightly), but loads of people sprang to his defence and said that this shouldn’t have been a crime in the first place – ignoring the glaringly obvious point that what he was doing was illegal and he was supposed to be one of the country’s human embodiments of the law! In other words, it wouldn’t have mattered if he’d been caught soliciting prostitutes or shoplifting a packet of cigarettes.
“, it wouldn’t have mattered if he’d been caught soliciting prostitutes or shoplifting a packet of cigarettes.”
Agreed, reminds me of Elliott Ness. He was asked, what are you going to do when prohibition is repealed? And he said, “I’ll have a drink.” The next hurdle for a politician is that the public doesn’t like adulterers. They don’t in the US, that might be different elsewhere.