Thursday, December 21, 2006

Paying For Sex

Some male friends of mine were having a conversation a while back.

One of them asked "Would you ever consider paying for sex?"

Another replied "Men always pay for sex. One way or the other. You always pay for it".

"And women always charge for it. One way or another" added a third.

Somebody needs to tell Nanny Harman, who is proposing to create a new criminal offence of 'Paying for Sex'. I wonder how she plans to define that.

What if I fall in love with a girl, I woo her, charm her and shower her with gifts (In feminist terms, I'm 'grooming' her for sex). Eventually she succumbs to my manly charms. I sweep her off her feet and carry her, triumphantly, to my bed, where we make passionate love. Is that going to be a criminal offence? Do those gifts that I gave her constitute payment for sex? If I get down on one knee and present her with a big diamond-studded ring, can that later be construed as 'payment' for sex?

Maybe it is only one night stands that will be subject to the law.

If I buy a girl dinner and a few drinks and then we have sex, will that be a criminal offence? If not, why not? Is that not paying for sex?

Maybe the law will be drafted so that only cash counts as 'payment'.

How about if my girlfriend loses her job, and I give her fifty pounds to pay her bills, and then later we have sex? Will that be a criminal offence? After all, the only reason I'm prepared to show her such generosity is because she's my girlfriend; in other words, because I'm having sex with her. If I wasn't having sex with her, I probably wouldn't be so ready to give her money. Looks like I'm a criminal. Probably a sex offender.

Maybe it needs to be a one night stand and a cash payment to constitute a criminal offence. So. I go out on a date with a girl. We have dinner and a few drinks. We split the bill like the modern adults we are. We go back to my place and have sex. I'm in love. I think I want to marry her. She needs to go home. She doesn't have enough money for a taxi. I give her twenty pounds and she goes, saying she'll call me in the morning. She calls me the next day and breaks it off. She never wants to see me again. As events turned out, it was a one night stand, and I gave her cash. Have I just paid her for sex? Was she in fact, just a cheap prostitute? We need to know.

If Nanny Harman's law becomes reality, we will probably find that prostitutes simply change their behaviour. Some will become con artists. Not revealing that they are in fact prostitutes, they will convince their clients to give them cash on some pretext like the taxi story above, or their mother's operation, and then they will disappear.

Or payment will be done using a joke euphemism. "Can you give me my" - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - "taxi fare? It's a very long way home, so it's rather expensive".

Some prostitutes will start accepting gifts in kind instead of money. High class call girls will probably only accept jewellery, which they will then sell.

What about the crack-whores who accept drugs in exchange for sex? In future, will that count as payment for sex, or merely supplying a controlled substance?

Some women will use intimidation against innocent men to blackmail them. "Give me some money or I'm going to say that you offered to pay me for sex".

That's only half the story; if it's nearly impossible to define 'payment', how much more difficult is it to define 'sex'?

Harman is stupid if she really thinks she can stamp out 'paying for sex'. I haven't thought this through completely, but in five minutes I managed to think further than Harman, with all her teams of advisors.

I know there are stupid people in the world. We just shouldn't let them into positions of power. Harman should probably be teaching kindergarten. That seems to be the level her mind works on, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a perfectly respectable job.

2 comments:

BrusselsLout said...

As a British man, I look at UK policy, culture and priorities with increasing anger, frustration and distress. The ramifications of this man-hating government's policies go deep. Your careful analysis is bang on. (It makes me all the more delighted to be living in Continental Europe, where the contrast is enormous, where men are actually fellow human beings, where "men" is not a dirty word.)

But the biggest problem in Britain is the men themselves. Every British man I speak to on this topic and the many closely related areas, actually agrees with the government.

Why? First of all, it's kool to support wimmin. (Even though this policy doesn't really help women, it has been packaged to give that appearance.) And any man not supporting extremist anti-male measures, who even dares to speak out against feminism, is a closet wife-beater or potential rapist, or at the very least, a nutter. This is how far feminist brainwashing has reached.

Secondly, we are a country that doesn't like to think, and even less to understand. Indeed, we are a country that needs to have a target for its hatred. The media, with dumbed-down BBC at the pinnacle, dominates in sustaining the country's mysandric mindset. And they make a lot of money out of it.

At the same time, politicians have discovered there is a rich source of votes here. In exchange, they offer our press loose laws that let them carry on as they wish. There is a symbiotic relationship between our politicians and press.

Websites like this one and Angry Harry's are a great start to the enormous mountain that we have to climb. I really appreciate their quality input and bold efforts.

Anonymous said...

I think you are wrong to suggest that Harpy Harmon should be allowed to be a teacher of any kind. women of her kind deserve no place in society where their evil can be perpetuated. can you imagine what she would get up to in a primary or pre school with her warped mentality and ideas... No the only safe job for her is painting the bottom of the 'feet' on a north sea oil rig.