If Trump’s attitude towards women offends you, so should the sex trade

trump playboy

People of all political stripes are going nuts over audio revealing Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault. While Trump defensively claimed his words were nothing more than “locker room talk,” many have pointed out that not all men talk like this.

While that may be true, there is one industry were all men do talk like this: the sex trade. Revealingly, Trump talks about women exactly the same way sex buyers do. He talks about women — sometimes behind closed doors but not always — the way men who’ve been raised on a steady diet of male entitlement towards the female body talk about women.

Listening to the recording was indeed sickening. I was horrified that millions of fellow victims and survivors had to endure this news, plastered everywhere, often botched up by the media, who referred to Trump’s comments as “raunchy sex talk” and, in the case of Fox News, featured a panelist who dismissively said, “no one was raped, nobody died.” But reading the flood of denunciations from public figures and so-called progressive outlets who were quick to condemn Trump’s misogynistic words but continue to support and promote the sex trade was too much.

The connection between Trump and the sex industry is a literal one — Trump himself was a strip club owner until 2014 when the Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City went bankrupt and Trump transferred ownership to Icahn Enterprises. When it opened in September 2013, Scores was the first strip club in the U.S. to open inside a casino. (Trump Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino closed down earlier this week after a labour dispute.)

Trump’s statement about the ease with which he sexually assaults women, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” references his cultural and economic capital — his power, in other words. Trump’s particular power, aside from being male, is his money — just like a john’s power in the sex trade is his money. Liberal and progressive supporters of the sex trade will often argue that money is synonymous with consent, dismissing the feminist analysis of prostitution as violence against women because, in prostitution, women are paid, fair and square, for access to their bodies, thereby “consenting” to being exploited. But when did progressives (who are supposed to have a stronghold on how capitalism works) forget that money is coercive?

Considering the work feminists have done to popularize the idea that only an enthusiastic and freely given “yes” constitutes consent, when it comes to sex, why do so many leftists see money as providing the exception to this rule?

In Being and Being Bought, Kajsa Ekis Ekman argues:

“Prostitution is sex between two people: one who wants it and another who doesn’t. Since desire is absent, money takes its place.”

Is this the kind of “consent” feminists were talking about?

Coercion is no aberration in porn either. On the contrary, it is its crowning jewel. Porn sites are full of videos that feature sexualized violence against women. Despite its noble declarations, Pornhub (the most visited porn website in the world) profits from pornography that sexualizes domestic violence, racism, and sexual assault — abuses we, as a society, have agreed are never something a person can “consent” to.

Some feminists and progressives sleep better at night by telling themselves that porn is just fantasy. But, as journalist Gabriel Muñoz Herval asks on the Spanish site, El Estado Mental, if it really is “just fantasy,” why must we condone it at all? Why is it that “millions of men get turned on, celebrate, and envy the role of rapists and aggressors that porn grants them?” And why are we ok with that?

Muñoz Herval writes:

“(Porn) asks itself only one question over and over again: what else can be done to women? Or better put, in what other ways can we degrade and humiliate a whore even more? The tiredness, given the limitations of sexual representations, follows this compulsive line: harder, rougher, more extreme. Other paths could be explored but no: the goal, the struggle and the obsession is to advance the destruction of women and celebrate and applaud (and market) occurrences such as using women as urinary (Human Toilets), make them vomit (Gag On My Cock), hit them (Slap Happy), ejaculate inside their eyes (Pink In The Eye), choke them, spit on them, pee in their mouths and an infinite modality of tearing women down, publicize it and offer it as daring, innovative and even humorous.”

Or, as Trump put it, you can do whatever you want to them.

Sex buyers understand what prostitution is and whose pleasure it is designed for. The Invisible Men project collects the words of johns, as written on prostitution review boards. A man who paid £120 for sex says:

“…By then she realized that I was pissed off and just wanted to get it over and done with. I had to literally force myself to cum with her dreary hand job, she said she was surprised that it happened and I replied ‘I wasn’t ready to come as I wanted to fuck some more’, to that she had no reply and went quiet. I didn’t say a word to her until I left, saying thanks and goodbye. To me, she doesn’t like the job, though really, if you are an escort and choose to offer your body on any website then you know what’s coming.”

Another sex buyer who paid £150 wrote:

“So oral sex, sex in two positions for what I assumed to be round one. Wouldn’t really get near me after the massage which I found a bit odd. The reason why soon became more apparent. 25/30 mins into the meeting I indicate I would like another round, to be met with ‘one hour, one fuck.’ Apparently she’d seen six other clients that day and her pussy was sore. I said that’s not my problem but she kept repeating the same phrase.”

The same liberal feminists and faux-progressives who support the existence of a sex trade — a place where men freely talk about women in this way and act out those ideas on women — who believe it is neutral (“just a job like any other”) or even potentially empowering for women now claim to be outraged by Trump’s words. But the jig is up, liberal feminists: you cannot bemoan sexual objectification and male entitlement when Trump does it, while you yourselves endorse an industry that relies on and fosters it, smearing anyone who opposes you.

In supporting prostitution and pornography, you are supporting the very same male entitlement Donald Trump boasts about. How can you be upset about Trump’s words while supporting and promoting an industry where his words are the rule?

Trump may claim, “You can do anything” is just words, but they are the sex trade’s ethos.

Raquel Rosario Sanchez
Raquel Rosario Sanchez

Raquel Rosario Sanchez is a writer from the Dominican Republic. Her utmost priority in her work and as a feminist is to end violence against girls and women. Her work has appeared in several print and digital publications both in English and Spanish, including: Feminist Current, El Grillo, La Replica, Tribuna Feminista, El Caribe and La Marea. You can follow her @8rosariosanchez where she rambles about feminism, politics, and poetry.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

$
Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Cassandra

    RIGHT ON PERFECT EXACTLY RIGHT, Ms. Sanchez. Pure gold.

    The NY Times did this yesterday — ran four women talking about P*ssyGate — and three of them (the fourth was a Christina Hoff Sommers type, gag me with a spoon) talked about “violence against women” and “rape culture” and never once mentioned porn or prostitution or stripping or any of it. Reading that shit is like being in a funhouse on mushrooms.

    • Wren

      Here’s a link to an editorial from Moby regarding the media and misogyny. He says,

      “Record labels promoted it by selling egregiously misogynistic music.
      Video game companies promoted it by selling egregiously misogynistic games.
      And so on, and so on, from TV to movies to advertisements.”

      I guess porn just falls into “And so on…”
      Then he reminds us that he’s not a fan of censorship.
      So people are WAYYY more afraid of being called pro-censorship than they are of protecting women from violence. Because porn=freedom of speech. It doesn’t matter that it makes absolutely no fucking sense to condemn a song but not filmed rape.

  • Lucia Lola

    Another brilliant article. Thank you.

  • melissa

    “Trump may claim, “You can do anything” is just words, but they are the sex trade’s ethos.”

    This is excellent. I was finding myself rolling my eyes to all the shock and horror some liberals and feminists were displaying at the pussy grabbing comments, when they themselves have become the strongest defenders of the vilest,most loathsome, sadistic, misogynistic men out there and the dehumanizing treatment they can afford enjoy inflict on women, because of the same of kind power and privilege over others that Trump is getting crucified for abusing.

  • DeColonise

    The headline to this article speaks for itself I have to say.

    Great article!

  • cocopop133

    Excuse me. Was I just snoring?

    • marv

      You are excused. He keeps returning with the same self-serving tired arguments for years now – a remedy for sleeplessness if you want to avoid Ambian addiction. I’m pretty sure his mutterings cause even him to doze. When he wakes up he forgot he already told us his spiel and repeats himself, putting others into slumber. It’s quite an unending cycle.

      • cocopop133

        Oh you are brilliant. Lol.

  • Morag999

    Yes, all johns.

    All johns exploit women sexually. Polite exploitation is oxymoronic because it is still exploitation; a benevolent master is still a master. “Nice” does not necessarily also mean “good.” A woman who owns a BMW or other expensive things is not some kind of super-heroine; she has not single-handedly conquered male supremacy and the objectification and commodification of women and children.

    You’re not OK.

  • Independent Radical

    “What consenting adults choose to do is none of your business.”

    Then why do they keep telling me about it? Why do they make videos and written texts explicitly depicting it? Why do they shove it into films and books that aren’t meant to be about that? If they just shut up about it, it wouldn’t even be possible for some big bad government to throw them in jail for being too “sexually liberated”, because the big bad government wouldn’t know. It’s not like we’re talking about loving long term relationships that might impact the course of somebody’s life.

    There’s no reason for the government to give a shit about how people have sex. It’s not in the business of “repressing” people for the purposes of repressing people. Its job is to keep society stable and functional, which at this point in history means maintaining capitalism, a system which has given rise to powerful industries dedicated to the “liberation” of sex. It’s not in the interests of the government to regulate sex, unless of course, sex has the potential to seriously harm the health of the population (resulting in the need to spend more money on health care) and when it comes to certain types of sex (unprotected promiscuous sex and sadomasochism for instance).

    If sex liberals want the government to pay for the consequences of their own sexual recklessness (and many of them do, their idea of “sexual repression” consists not of governments actually punishing them for engaging in violent or degrading sexual behaviours, but in governments not providing health care aimed at dealing with the bodily harm they inflict on each other) they need to accept that the government might try to save money by discouraging them from engaging in these dangerous acts.

    The Australian government has done this with cigarettes and it hasn’t resulted in gulags for people who smoke and besides sadomasochists would probably find gulags sexually arousing anyway. Economic and sexual liberals need to stop panicking over nothing.

    • Salsa Steak

      “Then why do they keep telling me about it? Why do they make videos and written texts explicitly depicting it? Why do they shove it into films and books
      that aren’t meant to be about that? If they just shut up about it, it wouldn’t even be possible for some big bad government to throw them in jail for being
      too “sexually liberated”, because the big bad government wouldn’t know. It’s not like we’re talking about loving long term relationships that might impact
      the course of somebody’s life.”
      Lol you sound like a republican. They’re the ones who are supposed to be advocating sexual censorship.

      • Independent Radical

        Oh yeah, I’m sure Donald Trump is advocating sexual censorship, with his frequent appearance based insults directed at women (which are not themselves pornographic, but which are inspired by the pornographic worldview that a women’s fuckability is more important than her humanity) and previous ownership of strip clubs. There’s a handful of anti-pornography conservatives out there, but not all right wingers are anti-pornography. Sex positivity spans the political spectrum and always degrades women. Sex negativity happens to span the political spectrum as well. My opposition to violent, degrading sex is based on my leftist belief that people should treat each other like equals and that we should try to abolish dominance submission dynamics.

        • Meghan Murphy

          Exactly. Trump is in full support of all that Salsa is, guaranteed.

        • Salsa Steak

          domanince/submition dynamics are part of nature. Why abolish something that’s perfectly natural? You’re born with it.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Same argument works for murder, bra.

          • Salsa Steak

            For much of human history murder was perfectly legal. We understood human nature then. Man is nothing more than another animal.

          • Meghan Murphy

            So you believe we should decriminalize murder?

          • Alienigena

            You are completely bonkers. In every primatology course (and textbook and article I read) I took in the late 1980s and early 1990s there was evidence that male primatologists were not very interested in female non-human primate biology or behaviour, given the absence of articles on the subject in journal articles published in 1960s, ’70s and early 80s. The thinking on dominance and submission that you are referencing was already passe 25 or more years ago. Science is ever changing that is why one of the tasks a scientist has to review recently published journals every few months or even more frequently to see what is new in the field. I did this as a biologist and know that my instructors in field of primatology (who were also engaged in research) did it as well.

            ” I seriously question whether it could have been just chance or just historical sequence that caused a small group of primatologists in the 1960s, who happened to be mostly male, to focus on male–male competition and on the number of matings males obtained, while a subsequent group of researchers, including manwomen (beginning in the 1970s), started to shift the focus to female behavior …”

            http://thehangedman.com/teaching-files/svd-phd/2-gender/hrdy.pdf

      • Cassandra

        Holy shit you are a real turd. The things you think need to be free speech are harmful to women as a class. It is hurtful and offensive to see these images over and over and over and over and over and over in every f*cking thing. You have no idea.

  • Independent Radical

    “I don’t bother non-prostitute women. I assume they want nothing to do with me.”

    I assume there’s a reason for that.

    “….not all sex buyers.”

    Yes all MRAs

  • Morag999

    “Start requiring more than consent and you open the doors to oppression on a mass scale.”

    Well, this is an interesting warning. The doors were opened a long, long time ago — surely you’ve heard the timeworn phrase “world’s oldest profession”?

    See, your oppression-radar is malfunctioning. It does not detect even the slightest bleep from the sexual exploitation and prostitution of women — which continues on a mass scale — yet it’s highly sensitive to any minor change in the status quo which may thwart men’s sexual access to those women. But the potential thwarting of male supremacist prerogative does not qualify as “oppression.”

    • Cassandra

      “But the potential thwarting of male supremacist prerogative does not qualify as “oppression.””

      This is another MRA truism in a nutshell, but as you and I have previously noted, MRAs are just most men. Sorry men, you suck.

  • Aylune B. Papyrus

    “It is obvious that he views women as play things, and has no qualms with violating their personal space and bodily autonomy for his own gratification”

    You guys should get along well then.

    Paying for a prostituted woman means you are buying the right to violate her personal space and bodily autonomy for your own gratification. She doesn’t want to have sex with you – that’s why you have to pay her. And you’re paying because you don’t give a shit about what she likes and see her as an object for you to use.

    If you didn’t, how would you even consider the idea of paying for access to her body ? How could that even cross your mind ?

    Also, please stop making excuses and trying to present yourself as a good guy. Nobody fucking cares.

  • Cassandra

    I just threw-up a little in my mouth.

  • Cassandra

    All “consent” is not created equal.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Why is it that people think sex is sacred and untouchable? Like, we can have conversations in every other arena, but not w/r/t sex?? Considering how badly women and girls are traumatized and abused via “sex,” you’d think this would be one of the most IMPORTANT areas society would be thinking about and addressing, from an ethical perspective.

    I’m not talking about jailing people. I mean, we can’t even speak or write critically about anything related to “sex” without being called repressive prudes.

    • Salsa Steak

      People are tired of being told what to do in the bedroom. We fought like hell so that you can basically do whatever you want with whoever you want. Now you want to add exceptions to that right. If all you were interested was saving women and girls you would take one of the much easier routes to doing that. Make the system so that they aren’t forced to be prostitutes, but only do that if they want to. Otherwise, you are basically saying the sexual revolution was wrong, gay rights was wrong, etc.

      • Meghan Murphy

        Who is being told what to do in the bedroom? Who is “we”? What “exceptions” am I adding? While I believe the sexual revolution did not liberate women and girls, I do not believe gay rights are ‘wrong’. Don’t be ridiculous. My criticisms of sex and sexuality are rooted in the way MEN fuck WOMEN and in critiques of HETEROSEXUALITY. Please don’t be manipulative.

        • Salsa Steak

          Are you kidding? Of course the sexual revolution liberated women. Or are you going to tell me it’s a coincidence marriage is uncool now.

          Just because you don’t feel empowered doing prostitution or porn is no reason to keep anyone else from doing it. Just address the economic factors that force people into that industry. While you’re at it address the economic factors that force people into working fast food, because it’s the same thing.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Marriage is not ‘uncool’ now by any means. And do you see women and girls ‘liberated’? Anywhere in the world? Truly? Certainly they haven’t been liberated through heterosexual sex which seems to be more harmful than not…

          • Salsa Steak

            Marriage rates are going down and will continue to go down as the conservative element in the world shrinks. Women are certainly not done but they have the right to have sex with whoever they want. They don’t belong to their fathers or husbands like they used to. This is directly caused by the sexual revolution.

          • Meghan Murphy

            No, dear. That’s directly caused by the feminist movement.

          • Salsa Steak

            Which was just part of the sexual revolutions that took place throughout history.

          • Meghan Murphy

            The sexual revolution and the feminist movement are not the same thing. Feminists have long been critical of the so called ‘sexual revolution,’ as it was something that primarily benefited men.

          • Salsa Steak

            It was a quid pro quo. You give me one, I give you the other.

          • Meghan Murphy

            You need to crack a book.

          • Salsa Steak

            Nah. You’ll never find written evidence of this. There’s just no other way it makes sense. Do you think men would have stood for it otherwise? Seriously?

          • Meghan Murphy

            lol

          • BenEsler

            Unravelling stupidity.

          • Cassandra

            “Do you think men would have stood for it otherwise?”

            First of all, you are very unappealing. I’d guess that may be why you’re here in the first place.

            Secondly, women fought for the vote and got it. At the time things were pretty conservative, and then the powers that be (men) immediately started commodifying and sexifying women’s steps toward independence, as evidenced by the 1920s (post WWI). It’s not a new pattern, dude. It’s still a shit sandwich for women as a class. Those of us here and many women in the past see it for what it is and say so, and that is why dudes like you lie on the floor kicking and screaming and pooping your pants. And that’s the best case scenario. The rest of the time it’s all the 8 million awful things men to do women non-stop.

            SEX is the axis on which you fuck us over, and you truly believe it’s somehow your right—an entitlement. It’s NOT.

          • Just Passing Through

            A MRA crack a book? lol…. will never happen.

          • Tinfoil the Hat

            You’re arguing with a dude. Sigh. Nothing makes dudes freak out more than when you threaten to take away their porn.

          • Cassandra

            “They don’t belong to their fathers or husbands like they used to. This is directly caused by the sexual revolution.”

            OMG! A d00d thinking that the feminist movement was about freeing women to have lots of freaky deaky sex with d00ds! Look at the SHOCKED look on my face!!!

            Dear d00d:

            The pill and legal abortion were/are important to women *not* for the act of sex in and of itself, but because it allows women to control their lives and not be broodmares.

            Though some people will say that birth control and abortion are constantly attacked my religious mother f*ckers in order to punish women for having sex, it’s maybe 5% that and 95% keeping women from getting out from under the patriarchal thumb.

            Sincerely,
            Someone who knows what the f*ck she’s talking about

          • Just Passing Through

            “Dear dood” lol your comments rock Cassandra! No holds barred gloves off comments..love ’em.

          • Cassandra

            No woman is ever, ever, ever “empowered” by prostitution and/or porn. Ever.

  • Independent Radical

    “Once we start requiring more than consent….”

    So according to you basic rules like

    – Don’t kill your partner during the sex act (which could easily happen if strangulation or fire is involved)
    – Don’t put them at risk of a deadly sexual disease (including unwanted pregnancy)
    – Try to make the act mutually pleasurable (not a rule that should be legally enforced, but worth mention anyway)

    Are just too sexually repressive are they? We can’t stop sex from being unpleasant or causing death, no, that would be terrible.

    “…we open the door to a return to the pre-sexual revolution theocracy. Is that really what you want?”

    Yes, to an extent, no hard core pornography, no women surgically altering their bodies to look like pornography performers, no prepubescent children starving themselves and plastering their faces with make-up or (in the case of boys) raping other children in imitation of what they see online, three to six year old girls could say words other than “princess” (you try talking to a girl child today, I swear it’s like to talking to the products of a femininity factory) and best selling novel ever was something other than hard core written pornography (I hope).

    Of course, the 1950s, which I assume is the era you’re talking about, also had soft core pornographic images of women and milder beauty products being shoved down women’s throats, so much of the sexism from that era wasn’t a matter of “sexual repression” at all. I don’t know what you think the “pre-sexual revolution” era was like, but let me put it this way, there was no sexual revolution. The ruling class was not removed from power or even forced to change its way. It just kept going down the path it had already decided to take in the 1950s (hence the pornographic magazines and the rampant consumerism). The “sexual liberation” of today is not a rebellion against that era, it’s the realisation of trends that started in that era.

    Even the more conservative elements of that era haven’t been abolished, the nuclear family is still an aspiration for most people (after they’ve spent their 20s having casual sex and learned nothing about how to form romantic relationships), women are still expected to do the vast majority of the housework (with more modern looking advertisements reflecting this role), “submit to your husbands” is still the norm in conservative circles, while liberals have replaced it with “submit to sexy dominants” and gender indoctrination has become more ubiquitous and more seductive (I struggle to find toys that are not considered “boy toys” or “girl toys”).

    To the extent that progress was made, it wasn’t made by paranoid straight people looking to liberate sex. It was made by those who wanted to liberate women, end racism, stop war and enable gay people to defy gender norms. Sex and drug crazed liberals appropriated these movements for their own ends.

    So would I like to live in the 1950s (which wasn’t even that sexually repressive towards straight people to begin with)? No, I like Star Wars and Harry Potter and being able to interact with people online and knowing that birth control pills are available to women who are in loving monogamous relationships and don’t want children (but who are in fact just as likely to get pregnant as “sexually liberated” people, suggesting that the fight for access to birth control pills doesn’t need to revolve around promoting sexual promiscuity). Would I erase the “sexual revolution” (or rather sexing up of society by the ruling class) related aspects of the modern era and keep the movements that challenged conservative ideals in ways that had little to do with sex? Yes, without hesitation. We need a women’s movement, not a sex liberal movement.

    • Cassandra

      “I don’t know what you think the “pre-sexual revolution” era was like, but let me put it this way, there was no sexual revolution. The ruling class was not removed from power or even forced to change its way. It just kept going down the path it had already decided to take in the 1950s (hence the pornographic magazines and the rampant consumerism). The “sexual liberation” of today is not a rebellion against that era, it’s the realisation of trends that started in that era.”

      Post WWII was indeed when consumerism really became a whole new thing with the advent and wide availability of television. What an excellent comment, Independent Radical.

      • Independent Radical

        Thanks! I’m basically just putting a Marxist spin on Gail Dine’s description of the history of the modern day pornography industry. She’s got a lot of insight into the links between capitalism and “sexual liberation”, though she capitulates a little bit too much to conservatives and to gender in general by constantly talking about her son, though it is important to point out that men are not born masculine and that pornography grooms mostly innocent boys into becoming horrible, misogynistic aggressors.

  • Morag999

    It’s you who doesn’t get it. The writer of this piece (not to mention hundreds of other pieces here by Murphy and contributors) makes it more than clear that there IS such a thing as sexual activity that is wrong, unethical, exploitative, etc.

    It’s not too hard to understand. Unless, of course, understanding interferes with your favourite porny pastimes.

  • BenEsler

    Are you actually arguing that if something is consented to it cannot be harmful, and should be immune to moral critique? Surely, you jest.

    • Salsa Steak

      Harmful is relative. If I consent to reading Harry Potter certain regressive elements would say that is harmful. It doesn’t matter. I consented.

      • BenEsler

        So according to your worldview consent is the be all and end all of morality, and literally all ethical enquiry concerned with harms having to do with anything other than a lack of consent is wasted effort? This is a truly radical position you’re taking, and contrary to thousands of years of conventional thinking about morality. I hope you realise that.

        But let’s take your example and run with it, shall we? Let’s imagine a world in which you, Salsa Steak, have “chosen” to read Harry Potter. You didn’t actually want to read Harry Potter. You would have much preferred to read something else. Or nothing at all. However, having grown up in extreme poverty, and in a world in which you have been utterly abandoned as valueless, other than as concerns your ability to read books about boy wizards, the choice to read Harry Potter is the only one available to you. You don’t enjoy JK Rowling’s writing, nor have you the faintest interest in the world of witchcraft and wizardry she has created on the page. In fact, you despise her prose and all it represents. Just the same, the choice to read Harry Potter, or not to read Harry Potter, is materially the same to you as the choice to live, or to die. If you read Harry Potter, you and your children will be fed and have a roof over your heads. If you refuse to read Harry Potter… then you, and they, will starve.

        As it happens, reading Harry Potter will frequently place you in danger of physical and psychological abuse. These abuses will not represent an aberration that can be contemplated independently of reading Harry Potter. Rather, they go entirely with the territory of reading Harry Potter, and may be reasonably anticipated by anyone who does so. By reading Harry Potter you will be degraded, humiliated, objectified and otherwise demeaned in your essential, innermost human dignity. You will experience repetitive, ongoing trauma. You will be at the mercy of others constantly. You will be terrorized. Such is the life of one who reads Harry Potter. Yet you go on… reading Harry Potter. After all, what other options exist?

        You’ve been reading Harry Potter for some time now, and some of your friends have even lost their lives while reading Harry Potter. This too goes with the territory, and you try not to think about it, but it’s always there. You wonder if they knew what was happening to them. You ask yourself if they were afraid. You wonder if anybody cares, now they’re gone, and gone forever, or if it’s enough that they’ve simply been replaced by someone new, who’s just as capable of reading Harry Potter as they were. You walk past the spot where it happened and think to yourself, “If anyone had been passing by… would they have helped them?” You wonder if you are next. You go on reading Harry Potter.

        One day you stop reading Harry Potter. Maybe you’ve developed the willpower to do so. Maybe someone has helped you. Maybe you have other options. Maybe you’re older, and less vulnerable. Maybe you’re older, and less valuable. Whatever the case may be, you’ve stopped reading Harry Potter. Just the same, there are consequences for reading Harry Potter, and you are not immune. These consequences persist in your life, as they do in the lives of all who read Harry Potter. They include years of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and myriad other psychological complications. Perhaps your very sense of self has been lacerated by reading Harry Potter. Maybe you have nightmares. Maybe you have flashbacks. Maybe you’re incapable of forming relationships. Maybe you just feel broken, and abused, and alone. Maybe you turn to drugs, or other destructive means of coping, to alleviate the pain and hurt and shame. Maybe it works.

        Maybe not.

        But then… you made your choice. You “consented”. It “doesn’t matter”. There’s nothing further that a moral person of conscience could say about any of this.

        …You chose.

        You read Harry Potter.

        • Salsa Steak

          Then someone should fix the system so that you don’t have to read Harry Potter to survive. What you should not do is regulate the reading of Harry Potter. Some people find it empowering.

          • Cassandra

            “Some people find it empowering.”

            Oh yes, because this is so “empowering”:
            “By reading Harry Potter you will be degraded, humiliated, objectified and otherwise demeaned in your essential, innermost human dignity. You will experience repetitive, ongoing trauma. You will be at the mercy of others constantly. You will be terrorized.”

            Stop using words and ideas you don’t understand, little dude. You sound like a beauty product commercial.

        • Cassandra

          That was really great, BenEsler!

      • Cassandra

        You really, really, really don’t understand “consent” within a system of male dominance and power hierarchies.

  • Anthocerotopsida

    Golly, you have ever so much respect for women! Ppfffttt

    If instead of asking permission for specific acts you asked her what she wants to do, she would tell you to give her the money and leave. Because she doesn’t want to do anything with you. It’s not fun for her.

    Also, this is a fairy tale that you wrote of what prostitution could look like in an idealized scenario. It’s not an experience that you’ve actually had. You’re lying.

  • Salsa Steak

    The only valid rules are the ones you consent to. One person’s uncomfortable is another person’s kinky.

    • Independent Radical

      “The only valid rules are the ones you consent to.”

      That statement is a rule I didn’t consent to.

      I didn’t consent to living in a world where there are no moral standards with regard to sex and the norm is for men to assess the value of a women based on how hot she is. I didn’t consent to living in a world where I can barely find a depiction of sexuality that isn’t characterised by violent or other expressions of dominance and submission, be they traditional or liberal. I didn’t consent to living in a world where people are trying to stamp out love in the name of liberating women (I don’t support marriage, but I sense your attack on it is really an attack on all monogamous romantic relationships). I despise living in the world your ideology has created. I haven’t been freed by it and neither have any of the women who are being told that they are naive idiots for wanting male partners who will remain faithful to them, let alone avoid consuming degrading, pornographic idiots.

      • Salsa Steak

        Monogamy is unnatural. Men’s psychies are damaged when you tie them down to one woman. And then you complain when they act irratically. Why would you want the same person for a long-term relationship anyway?

        • Morag999

          “Men’s psychies are damaged when you tie them down to one woman. And then you complain when they act irratically [sic].”

          OK, now that you’ve had a chance to fully reveal your damaged male psyche, nourished by a diet of pseudo-intellectual, pornographic, profoundly ridiculous men’s rights “literature,” you’ve got me snickering.

          But let me assuage your masculine anxieties and assure you that no woman, whose consciousness has been raised up more than an inch from the patriarchal slime, would want to be near you, let alone to tie you down. Unless it meant tying you down to a chair to prevent you from going off, Elliot Roger style, on her and her sisters.

          Please be free, little MRA. Go your own way. Fly away and leave women alone.

        • Cassandra

          Their psyches are *damaged*? LOL!

          And generally a long-term relationship is characterized by being in it with one person. Otherwise it’s not a long-term relationship.

          Also, men don’t have to get married. Nobody’s twisting their arms. If there’s ever a time when women make just as much money as men and have the same opportunities + complete control of their bodies, women will opt out in droves.

          P.S.
          Marriage is for the benefit of men.

        • FakeFeminist

          Do you have any actual scientific evidence that monogamy/serial monogamy is not the natural state for humans? Like, outside of evo psych, which as everyone knows is a complete joke?

          • Salsa Steak

            Maybe… monogamy’s complete failure? It doesn’t work. Half of marriages end and the other half are held together by religious fairytales.
            Also what makes you so qualified to dismiss evolutionary psychology? It’s an actual scientific field backed up by evidence. You can’t just say “herp derp evo psych suxorz”

          • Kendall Turtle

            “half of marriages end” definitely does not disprove serial monogomy

            “The other half are held together by religious fairytales” that’s pretty presumptuous…

            “It’s a field backed up by evidence” ah, yes “evidence” men have had that a long time, like when they said men have “a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.”, that was a part of social Darwinism a very popular “theory backed up by evidence” back in the day.

          • Salsa Steak

            You can’t disagree with science because it doesn’t turn out the way you want. You can smoke all you want but science says it will still kill you. As for monogamy, again, look at the state of marriage. You can’t tell me it’s barely held together. The evidence is there.

          • Kendall Turtle

            Yeah I was being sarcastic about them having ACTUAL evidence, I guess you don’t get sarcasm, my bad.

            Also marriage isn’t representative of ALL monogamous relationships, you seem to think ONLY married people are monogamous, that is simply untrue.

          • Alienigena

            Yeah, and eugenics supposedly was based on ‘actual science’ … but in fact it was not. Scientific theory is ever changing … it unlike religious belief or human legal codes is not written in stone. If you knew anything about science you would know that. The fact that serial monogamy was thought to primarily benefit men (in terms of assuring paternity of offspring) escaped you? That women were thought to benefit less from it than men. So not sure what your argument really is. Since most social and reproductive systems are designed to benefit men (ensure that men live in groups of related males, e.g. patrilieneal, patrilocal societies and that females have to outmigrate leaving behind family, support systems). In certain societies women seem to benefit from multiple marriages (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2cx2k0p4#page-1), so the assumption that what’s good for the gander is not also good for the goose (multiple marriages, polyandry), is also false. Anthropological research shows us that there are many ways that humans organize themselves (polygynandry (a group of brothers marries a group of sisters starting with oldest, general monogamous relationships result when all sisters are married (age differences result in staggered marriages)), matrilocal, patrilocal, polygamy, etc.). You seem to have a very simplistic and mistaken understanding of human sexual selection and social organization.

          • Salsa Steak

            Actually eugenics is perfectly scientific. The politics just got in the way, and now the world is way overpopulated because we allowed too many people to breed.

          • Alienigena

            Again you seem to know nothing about science. A flawed methodology will garner you criticism from peers, possibly even ridicule and there has been much criticism of eugenics based on the methodologies used.

            http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=bio_facpubs

            https://www.dnalc.org/view/15465-The-American-eugenics-movement-and-bad-science-James-Watson.html

            Don’t really want to respond to respond to any more of your posts as that just seems to provide you with the ‘oxygen’ you need to make additional posts.

          • will

            “So not sure what your argument really is.”

            I don’t think he does either. I think he’s just intoxicated by the attention he’s getting here. Pretty sure he’s pulling the pud in his Mommy’s basement.

        • Alienigena

          If men are so inherently unbalanced maybe they should all be drugged to the gills with sedatives so they don’t present a danger to others. I mean we are willing to drug children with learning disabilities why not violent, sexually assaultative men.

      • Salsa Steak

        What would this utopian sex you imagine even look like? Obviously no kink, but is that it? You’re just kink-phobic?

        • Cassandra

          Is it so hard to imagine sex without the dominant/submissive dynamic? Does it make your head hurt?

          Not sure where you picked-up “kink-phobic” but you sound like a gender-queer feminist henchman.

        • Independent Radical

          Here’s how sexual relationships (yes, there would relationships *gasp*) would occur in my ideal world.
          First two (yes two, not a whole group of greedy, subversion obsessed people) human beings (regardless of their biological sex) would sit down together and talk and talk and talk about important things, not about how physically attractive they both were and what kind of sex they want to have, but things that are important to relationships, like what sort of people they both there and what they aspired to be. Religious (or rather philosophical, because I’m opposed to religion *gasp*) and political ideas would be discussed at length. Disagreements would be exposed. Life plans would be revealed early on in the relationships. All the “serious stuff” that society says you shouldn’t talk about until you’re already madly in lust (it’s not love if all you know about the person is how sexy and superficially charming they are) would be addressed at the beginning of the relationship, in place of the cultural norms that say first dates should be all about “making a good impression” (lying about yourself to increase your likeability).
          This way, the odds of monogamous relationships ending quickly and dramatically would be way lower. As it stands, our culture is doing everything it can to ensure that monogamy fails. It shoves sex down everyone’s throats, sets prettiness standards that men then expect their aging wives to adhere to and makes men feel entitled to more sex than they’ll realistic get from a long lasting relationship, while also making sex the centre of such relationships. When it does promote monogamy, it tells us to pick partners based on physical attraction, superficial charm and wealth, attributes that have nothing to do with being a good life partner. Finally, we’re expected to pay thousands of dollar to make a grandiose declaration of love that put couples into debt and thereby create conflict within relationships. Our culture, including its blatantly sexualised elements, stacks the odds against monogamy, then blames monogamy for its failure. It’s like dumping a baby animal in toxic sludge and then claiming the animal that the animal was weak because it died.
          Then after all that talking, which sex liberal men see as a waste of time, because who would want to listen to the thoughts and feelings of a women when you could just penetrate her, right? The couple (and they would be a couple by this point, by virtue of the fact that they’ve gotten to know one another, regardless of whatever physical contact has or hasn’t occurred between them) would then engage in behaviours aimed at expressing their love including eating dinner together, giving each other gifts, watching films together and engaging in any other hobbies they enjoy. Sexual behaviours would be COMPLETELY OPTIONAL socially (romantic relationships that do not involve sex would be accepted as real relationships) and within the relationship. Love would be the goal, not sex or sexual pleasure, though love could be expressed NOT CREATED through mutually pleasurable sexual behaviours.
          The sexual behaviours themselves would not involve power inequalities. Nobody would be the dominant or the submissive, the conqueror or the conquered the master or the slave, just two equals enjoying each other’s physical company. The emotional bond between the two of them would make the act pleasurable, not excessive physical stimulation (the same way you don’t need blood and guts to make a film entertaining if you’ve got a compelling story and characters). Efforts would be made to reduce physical pain, degradation and risk (of both infection and injury) as much as possible while still evoking pleasure. Nobody would be deprived of the ability to move, so that if wanted to end the act they could actually get up and end it, not just beg the person to let it end. In terms of the physical details, I think that should be open to debate. The problem is that sex liberal ideology doesn’t allow any criteria to be laid out at all, so it’s suppressing such debate.
          Most importantly, in my ideal world, SEX WOULDN’T KILL WOMEN
          What a ridiculously high standard right?
          Sorry if I used too many all caps, I felt they were necessary.

          • oneclickboedicea

            I’m in!

  • Cassandra

    Yeah, and he seems like one of the better ones. Love how he says “egregious misogyny.” I guess plain old low-key misogyny is okay? It’s *egregious* misogyny that really causes the problems.

    • Wren

      totally. There’s “egregious” misogyny and then…magically it turns into FREE SPEECH!!

  • Delilah

    How very admirable.

  • FakeFeminist

    Do you really think she would have sex with you if you weren’t paying for it? You’re sticking your penis in a person who does not want your penis inside her. How do you not understand how disgusting that is?

  • Salsa Steak

    Why? The same argument could be made for you. If a person finds something empowering it’s not your business to tell them they shouldn’t.

    • oneclickboedicea

      It is my business if they are promoting or propogating a gendered violence that then impacts on me – its the equivalent of passive smoking. You can batter yourself black and blue for all I care and get off on it, the moment you start doing it to another person with or without their consent it is assault. Promoting it via media as sexually empowering and creating a belief that women enjoy being violated is dangerous to the majority of women and children and impacts on their lives, regardless of the impact it has on you and your bubble world of one.

  • Morag999

    “Yeah, men are so biologically, naturally sick and anti-social that they require the subservience and exploitation of women or else they’ll become sick and anti-social. Got it.”

    I know! Their arguments are circular and airtight: men are damaged and beyond repair, so they need inferiors and slaves in order to survive, and they need those inferiors and slaves to be happy with this supremacist arrangement, because their own male brains and/or psyches don’t work good.

    Why don’t we just believe them when they tell us that they’re broken and that, because they’re broken, they lack the will and ability to stop doing the things that broken people do?

    • cocopop133

      And just to be clear, it was women that broke them.

  • Wren

    WHAT COUNTRY DID THIS??
    Can I move there?

    • will

      Me too!

    • zirreael

      Russia did ) But I wouldn’t go there now, it became insanely conservative in the past decade…

  • Tinfoil the Hat

    “We” fought like hell? Dudes? HA, don’t make me laugh!

  • Tinfoil the Hat

    Nobody cares about your boner. Or how you appease it by treating women like toilets.

  • Meghan Murphy

    lolololollllllllll

    “Beta males” is not a real thing you twit. Back to the red pill reddit forum, bud. You’re lost.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Dude. Honestly, get out of the MRA forums. They are feeding you creepy, bullshit propaganda. And please leave the thread. You are wasting people’s time.

  • marv

    A quest for redemption, yes. Liberals would/do exonerate him. He has to be in a stupor to think one of you rad-fems would absolve him.

  • Independent Radical

    Keep posting comments if you want I need documentation of the evils of sex liberal men. Liberals say they want their sexual preferences to be tolerated (or the newest buzzword “accepted”) but they have no acceptance for less “liberated” sexual and romantic preferences. Newsflash jerk, the reason some women pick dominant, aggressive males is because either they superficially appear charming when you first meet them and their inner evil is concealed or the women believe they can redeem such men. They don’t want men to be aggressive towards them, but they get sucked in by the idea that they can stop such aggression, because there’s still goodness buried deep within the men, which in your case, probably isn’t true, but keep commenting. Evil men are fascinating.

  • Cassandra

    “Wet blanket beta males. If they’re lucky they get a first date ut never a second.”

    The MRA doth projects too much, methinks.

    • Salsa Steak

      Yes, I’ve been there. That’s why I’m working on becoming alpha. The first step is to star tpreaching against harmful idiologies.

      • Cassandra

        For some reason I feel sorry for you—though I really shouldn’t—that you’ve been taken in by this. The path you’re on is not one that will lead to happiness.

  • Cassandra

    Not every “beautiful woman” likes so-called “alpha males” though. Many find them repulsive because they think they can buy you. BARF on toast.

    • Salsa Steak

      You’re right. Some beautiful women do marry beta males with money. Then they cheat on him with the local alpha.

      • Meghan Murphy

        You don’t know very many women, do you?

      • Cassandra

        And you know this how? If they find “alphas” repulsive, they’re not sleeping with them.

        • Salsa Steak

          Most women will say they find alpha behavior repulsive, but when confronted with it their reaction is otherwise.

  • Independent Radical

    So I take it your plan is to forcibly split apart happy monogamous vanilla couples (made up of people who don’t have a fuck-everything-that-moves mentality and therefore don’t feel deprived of anything if they can’t fuck-everything-that-moves and simply find joy in the fact that they are valued as unique individuals), because you think they lack liberation? That’s your plan right. Heads up, monogamous vanilla people, especially monogamous vanilla women aren’t going to like it.
    They aren’t going to feel liberated by enforced promiscuity, because that would take away their freedom to actually love other human beings instead of being used for sex , cast aside when their “function” is fulfilled and forbidden from returning to previous partners by the threat of being labelled a “clingy bitch”. As for compelling women to reject vanilla sex in favour of sadomasochism, because being beaten up is somehow a form of liberation, let’s just the words “evil” and “Orwellian” exist for a reason.

  • Meghan Murphy

    I know there are billions of them. But do *you* actually know any adult women, personally, is the question. The reason I ask is because it appears as though everything you “know” about women, you learned from other 19 year old white dudes on reddit.

  • Meghan Murphy

    No… they come from pathetic men who lie on the internet…

    • Salsa Steak

      Where is your evidence? I can produce lots of evidence that even the most ardent feminist will submit to the advances of an alpha male. Read the numerous books published on the issue.

      • Meghan Murphy

        You want me to read books by pickup artists? Naw.

        • Raysa_Lite

          He can produce “evidence that even the most ardent feminist will submit to the advances of an alpha male.”

          Wow.

          I’m willing to bet that he and I have very different definitions of “submit”.

          When males rape, they attempt to produce tons of evidence of submission. And that evidence is very often that the woman was drunk, or not a virgin, or wearing a short skirt, etc.

          So I bet that he can offer evidence of submitting. In the very same way that a rapist can.

  • oneclickboedicea

    You know that mra world you live in isnt real dont you? Is this a kind of therapy coming to talk to people who know your world view is just to support your ego and chronic need for male supremacy?

  • Such a dehumanizing sentence. It means he doesn’t view either a prostitute or a girlfriend as independent humans who aren’t just crafted for his desires. So creepy.

    He also said “The slave has the power to easily dispose of the master.” which shows a thorough understanding of how systems of oppression work.

  • Salsa Steak

    Did it hurt when they cut off your balls?

    • Meghan Murphy

      You are talking to a woman you fucking idiot. Anyway, I think we’ve wasted enough time on you. Move along now.

  • Meghan Murphy

    No. Not at all.