Quote# 97124

[On extending protection to male rape victims]

And this also gets to the heart of my objection to applying the victimhood mantle to the male. Making men as physically helpless and violable as contemporary feminists hold women to be is a form of social castration. One of the defining characteristics of masculinity is the possession of agency — the ability to act. Take this away and we are slaves, so removing this from men – even with a concept ostensibly meant to “protect” men – leads us down a hole, at the bottom of which we find ourselves bereft of our manhood both culturally and legally. And make no mistake: many people really do want to rob men of their manhood. Male feminist Michael Kimmel has made a career of it.

This is not to say that men cannot be victimized or real victims; they clearly can and this has always been recognized. But the most effective means of victimizing men has always been to reduce them to a state in which they are incapable of protecting themselves and acting in their own interests, and this is accomplished as easily by feminizing them as by direct force of arms.

When a woman appeals to people for help and protection, she is engaged in an empowering act. When men rush to a woman’s aid, it demonstrates her female potency. When her “needs” are met by others, it does not detract from but rather adds to her status. For ancient, immutable reasons, this does not apply to men.

The man who cries “help” feels a certain shame. When he must apply for welfare, it is humiliating and emasculating. That men must swallow their pride and do so from time to time is a given, but almost all of us recognize that it is far from ideal when the necessity presents itself. Ideally, the man has agency, and can fend for himself. In a society that valued men, steps would be taken to ensure that men have the opportunity to do so. A society that enshrines male victimhood is the exact opposite.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 25 Comments [10/19/2013 6:43:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 33

Quote# 97021

But pedophiles 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.

I think there are a too few prostitute feminists on this blog who will do anything to perpetuate the tax-free lifestyle prostitutes are currently legally entitled to in most places.

Prostitution tax avoidance and accountability avoidance opportunities need to be shut down.
If a grown woman would make the argument she’s a prostitute due to being victim of circumstance, then a child will be encouraged to make the same argument. Set a better example.

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.

It’s such a simple course of action – but manboobzers will conspire to make it seem ridiculous, unquantifiable, un-knowable and so on.

I know a whore when I see one.

Tom Martin, manboobz 149 Comments [10/13/2013 5:27:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 369