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
When Feminists Oppose Prostitution
1992 Bellevue, Wash. - 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: Men, Women, and Rape, 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.
Committed to Marriage
Years ago, women were inclined to honor this contract. Lack of money bound them to their wedding vows. (Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress, 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 and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress, 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: Being Single by Choice, Cynthia S. Smith, p 1) Sperm, they can get just about anywhere, which leaves only support. Money.
What they are really arguing is that for most women, marriage means money. That is, engaging in sex for money. And that's prostitution.
The Secret Truth about Marriage?
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: The Myth of Women's Liberation in America, 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.
Controlling Male Sexuality
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, while objectifying women sexually is a perversion.
These are not things they can admit. So they lie and claim that 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: Men, Women, and Rape, Susan Brownmiller, pp 439 - 440
"Heroic Rapist" v. "White Knight"
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.
Wages for Housewives
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 and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 383) Here they are blatantly 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.
2012 Olympia, Wash. - Since I wrote that, we have seen feminists both rail against prostitution, and demand rights for and legalization of sex workers. The feminist movement has never cared about consistency, in fact it is obvious that their contradictory demands are intentional: it keeps men off balance.
As a libertarian conservative, I am against criminalizing voluntary exchanges between adults. Prostitution made sense to me at age 13, when the hormones were raging, but by age 17 I saw sex through more mature eyes that also placed high value on emotional intimacy.
That said, what I wrote in the Introduction applies here: "What Every Man Should Know About Feminist Issues is organized to systematically inform men about gender-issues and respond to them...Referring to feminist sources whenever possible..." While many others have responded very competently to the feminist drivel with well-reasoned arguments, all of which have been dismissed and discarded as perpetuating the subjugation of women, by and large I responded with their own arguments.
In hundreds of radio interviews and several television talkshows, I employed this technique with devastating effect. Feminist after feminist fell silent. But I was not alone. Fred Hayward, Warren Farrell, Mel Feit, Anthony Nazzaro and I were soon followed by Chistina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, and many others, who drove the feminist bigots from the talk radio and TV talk shows. We thought this was a victory. We were mistaken.
Instead of retreating, they were simply ignoring us. And then the talkshow format changed. Gone were the moderated discussions, replaced with shouting shows, the most civil of which featured paternity tests.
Meanwhile, laws, policies and government bureaucracies aimed at oppressing men to elevate women have spread like a cancer throughout western society. Women are seen as perma-victims, and men are permanently to blame, their guilt unquestioned, their penance to agree without question to all that women demand of them. Any man who stands up to them is an affront or, worse, a bully.
With each passing year, the status of men more closely resembles that of the African slaves in Colonial America and, later, the pre-Civil War southern plantations. We do have freedoms, but fewer than women, and with more obligations, like the military draft and child support payments.
So I set out to use the most effective arguments to expose feminist hypocrisy, never imagining that twenty years later psychopaths, sociopaths, and some with narcissistic personality disorder, others with borderline personality disorder--or feminazis--would use this chapter to persuade members of an organization to which we all belong that I equate marriage with prostitution.
How I Really View Marriage
I like a few aspects of how L.E. Modesitt, Jr. portrays marriage in his Recluce Series. There are no husbands and wives, only consorts. Dominant-subordinate relationships work for some people: those with alpha and beta personalities. With my gamma-male personality, that does not appeal to me. What does is being consorted to a gamma-female, in which our relationship is based on mutual trust, respect and commitment.
In the eyes of the feminists, who view relationships in terms of dominance and submission, this is blasphemy.
Generally, I don't care what such people think or how they try to spin what I've written. But the organization to which we belong controls budgets. The feminazis in this organization, whom I call "the sisterhood and their male familiars," are attacking anybody who stands between them and control of this money.
Their goal is to set up programs they control that will benefit fewer than 10 percent of our constituents, mostly the people running the programs. And I'm one of the people standing in their way, so, among other things, they're parading this chapter around, taking it out of the context of everything I've written, to claim that I hate women.
The irony is that several of the women who are doing this, are women I very actively helped to promote into their current positions. Were I the kind of person to hate women, I'd take that as reason to refuse to help any women in the future. But that would be irrational. Just as the sisterhood and their male familiars are irrational. Irrational, and motivated by money, power, attention and prestige to abuse their positions at the expense of our constituents.
Rod Van Mechelen