| [ |
mood |
| |
 drunk |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Young Jeezy And then what? |
] |
Marriage and Prostitution?
Written by by Rod Van Mechelen
By the age of twelve, at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned for a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make use of their vagina at certain given moments.
-- Esther Vilar, The Manipulated Man
Pop-feminists oppose prostitution on the grounds that it causes men to believe they have a divine right to "gain access to the female body." (Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller, p 440)
But their opposition has less to do with men, than with women's attitudes about sex: Any woman willing or desirous to sell her sexual services for a fixed price undermines the social and political power of those who would control men by asserting women have a right to men's services, but men have no right to women's.
To do this, they argue women "sell their bodies" because the "oppressive male society" has deprived them of any better means of making as much money as they can make as prostitutes. But this is an excuse, because most men can't make that much money, either.
With equal validity, we might argue that women have sexually oppressed men by devaluing male-sensuality. Thus, most men are unable to pursue a career as a gigolo because most women only love men for money. That is, women are sellers, not buyers. That is, they sell sexual services in exchange for a life-time income contract called marriage. In that respect, marriage is nothing more than "legitimate" prostitution.
Years ago, women were inclined to honor this contract. Lack of money bound them to their wedding vows. (Women & Love, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 384) But as Shere Hite notes, women's liberation changed that: "If economic self-sufficiency has only begun to change the emotional interior of marriage, it has at least made it possible for women to leave marriages." (Women & Love, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 403)
Having money allows women to leave their marriages because they no longer need to get it from their husbands. If they can't get the money they need through alimony or work, they can get it from welfare. As Cynthia S. Smith observes, there are really only two reasons for women to marry: "sperm and support." (Why Women Shouldn't Marry, Cynthia S. Smith, p 1) Sperm, they can get just about anywhere, which leaves only support. Money.
For most women, marriage means money. That is, engaging in sex for money. And that's prostitution.
Women know this: "Traditional women were and are deeply suspicious of the package we call the sexual revolution. They know that in the past women were valued for sex and reproduction, and they believe that wives should hang on to their monopoly on legitimate sex for the very simple reason that it enhances their value." (A Lesser Life, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, p 330)
"Legitimate sex" equals marriage, and pop-feminists oppose prostitution -- "black market sex" -- not because it harms "ladies of the night" or causes men to lose respect for women, but because it undermines women's monopoly on "legitimate" sex. That is, it undercuts the monopoly price and decreases female sexual power.
If a man can buy a professional's sexual services for a nominal sum, then what incentive does he have, beyond non-sexual reasons, to commit his life-time earnings to support a wife? Why should he buy the proverbial cow if he can buy the proverbial milk by the quart?
This poses a significant threat to "liberated" women because, were prostitution both legal and socially acceptable, they would have to compete on some basis other than sex.
Pragmatically, pop-feminists can't accept that. Philosophically, however, it is repugnant to them because it condones the sexual objectification of women. In their ideology, objectifying men as walking wallets is natural, objectifying women is not.
These are not things they can admit. So they assert it encourages rape:
The myth of the heroic rapist that permeates false notions of masculinity, from the successful seducer to the man who "takes what he wants when he wants it," is inculcated in young boys from the time they first become aware that being a male means access to certain mysterious rites and privileges, including the right to buy a woman's body. When young men learn that females may be bought for a price, and that acts of sex command set prices, then how should they not also conclude that that which may be bought may also be taken without the civility of a monetary exchange? -- Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller, pp 439 - 440
As the "heroic rapist" is a figure common to women's romance novels, while men's "literature" features either chivalrous heroes who risk their lives for women, or "studs" whose sexual services women seek, their premise, that setting a price on sexual services will lead young men to rape, makes no sense.
Humorously, we might suggest merchants know that by putting a price on a bar of chocolate or a pack of gum, they are encouraging kiddie crime. Clearly, this is not the case, and the real risk prostitution poses is of making men realize a woman's sexual services, regardless of whether you pay for them in cash or with a house and a life-time income, are for sale.
In the United Kingdom and other countries, pop-feminists have already reclassified "housewife" as "housekeeper and prostitute": "In the United Kingdom and other countries, there is a movement, 'Wages for Housework,' which advocates the idea that the husband should pay the wife for her services within the house -- especially if she works fulltime at home, doing the child rearing and cooking, cleaning, etc." (Women & Love, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 383) Here they are reducing the role of wife to that of a housekeeping prostitute, and they accuse men of sexually objectifying women?
Should they succeed in selling this silly idea, then it becomes imperative that, to sustain and increase their power, prostitution and pornography must be destroyed. If a man may hire a once a week housekeeper and a twice a week prostitute for less than the cost of marriage, then he might be content without a wife. This would completely undermine the goal of the "wages for housework" campaign, which is to procure for women a male-provided life-time income pop-feminists can tap into. Hence, not only does prostitution decrease female sexual power, but it threatens pop-feminist power, too.
So what are your views????? You tell me yours and I will tell you mine.....
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
kaitlyndavis's journal
extra super duper excited
perky
sasssy
Eager
blah
sick
pissy
bored
horny
47 (52.8%)
giddy
awake
enthralled
lazy
d 
