Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Quelle domage, feministes!

The outing of the notorious blogger Belle de Jour as scientist Brooke Magnanti, is another severe blow for the Labour-wimin's moral crusade against prostitution. Following so quickly after the revelation that sex trafficking was a pack of lies designed to demonise all prostitution in the eyes of the public, the news that an intelligent, articulate woman chooses prostitution of her own volition and makes a handsome living from it, is yet more evidence that the feminist victim culture is as wrong-headed and deceitful as it is sordid and pathetic.

It took me a long time to understand why it is that feminists do not support prostitutes. Surely prostitutes are independent, self-employed women, expressing their sexuality and making their way in the world, showing courage and entrepreneurship? Surely a women's movement would applaud them just for that alone? But no. The fact is, prostitutes are letting the side down.

As I have argued elsewhere, the feminist movement is essentially a protectionist trade organisation, like a union. It seeks monopoly control over the price of sex. Prostitutes are, in effect, blackleg labour, strike breakers. They undercut middle-class women. If men can go and pay for sex with someone like Brooke Magnanti, why on earth would they bother to put up with the endless screaming demands, the controlling behaviour, the constant low-level mental abuse, the endless tears and hissy fits of the average middle-class princess? They wouldn't. That is why feminists want to make sure that men have got nowhere else to go. They exercise monopoly control over the price of sex, and the deal is, take it or leave it. The sex industry in all its forms threatens this monopoly control.

How ironic it seems at first sight that the women's movement should have such apparent disregard for the welfare of female sex workers, whom it claims to champion. In fact, feminists care nothing for the interests of female sex workers. This is obvious from the fact that they are forever in conflict with prostitutes' representative organisations, and the fact that time and again, they advocate increasingly draconian laws which will make life ever more dangerous for these very women they claim to be protecting. If prostitutes are driven ever further towards the margins of society, beyond the protection of the law, beyond help, further and further into danger, that is absolutely fine by the feminist movement. If a few working class women have to die every year pour encourager les autres, so be it.

There is nothing new in this kind of hypocrisy and cavalier disregard for people's lives - it has always been a feature of Leftist thinking. The Communist parties of the 20th century claimed to champion the interests of the working class, and yet thought nothing of causing the deaths of millions of them, and holding the survivors in abject servitude. How exactly this served their interests, it is difficult to see. In fact it served the interests of the Communist Party, not the people.

The feminist movement is on a moral crusade against prostitution, again. It has a habit of going on moral crusades against this, that or the other, and most of these turn out to be utterly disastrous. Feminists were largely responsible for the introduction of the Volstead Act, which gave rise to alcohol prohibition in the USA.

Many of the same characteristics can be seen between that disastrous effort, and the current anti-prostitution hysteria.

  • Rather than ceasing to exist, the illegal industry was simply taken over by gangsters.
  • The products did not become any more difficult to obtain, perhaps even easier.
  • The whole industry became a lot more more dangerous for everyone involved.
  • Feminists took this harmful social fallout as evidence that they had been correct all along in trying to ban this nasty business, instead of realising that they themselves had caused the harm, by the very act of making it illegal in the first place.

The feminist failure to learn lessons is all the more unforgivable when one considers the fact that they got the logic correct on the topic of abortion. They saw clearly that making it illegal would not stop it happening, it would simply drive it underground, etc, etc. We have all heard the argument, and it does have some merit to it. The difference is of course, abortion is something that feminists want; prostitution is something they don't want. They cannot even be honest enough to tell the truth. Prostitutes will continue to exist and die on the margins of society, so that dishonest and ideologically-driven organisations such as the Poppy Project (whose website apparently states, in the turgid prose of a 1970s Sociology Department, that prostitution "helps to construct and maintain gender inequality") can continue to enjoy their generous sinecures at taxpayers' expense, under the pretext of 'rescuing fallen women'. In fact, their agenda is essentially a Marxist one.

The mask is beginning to slip though. You can't fool all of the people all of the time. La Harman and La Smith's moral crusade against the sex industry is sinking fast, along with the rest of the Labour ship. Quelle domage! Aux bateaux! Les dames et les enfants avant!

I take my hat off to you, Miss Magnanti.


Miss Ondrya said...

Hot Damn! Another piece for your book: Heretical Sex, selected writings. :)

Perfect article, except perhaps for the last sentence. Can't say I take my hat off to hookers, especially not the "classy" ones, who often see sex as a means to control and dominate men. For those it's an act of aggression.

As for poor women: if you're attractive enough to sell your body, you should be attractive enough to find yourself a husband.

We don't take our hat off to men who visits whores, do we? It's an embarrassing weakness, for both sexes.

Personally, as a man, I don't even want to think about it

And what a revelation. Here's a woman who gets an opportunity to be a scientist and still prefers to behave like a whore. If that isn't the perfect illustration of the fact that women are natural born narcissists and destined to live in front of a mirror.

Freud asked: what do women want? The answer is simple: attention.

She could also have made money as a computer programmer, she said, but whoring was so much more enjoyable.

Nevertheless will nerds and geeks around the world be told that it's THEIR fault that there are so few female programmers and other exact scientists.

Jessica Rene said...

I love your writing and thoughts.

Anonymous said...

I place hookers in the same company as drug dealers. Both are essentially lazy individuals seeking to exploit the weaknesses of others for easy money. Every prostitute I've spoken to is candid about her motive - she does it to make much more money than she would in any other venture. Many detest men, and those that don't are usually fast on their way to changing their minds. That they are the agents of their own depraved view doesn't occur to them.

Matt said...

"The feminist failure to learn lessons is all the more unforgivable when one considers the fact that they got the logic correct on the topic of abortion. They saw clearly that making it illegal would not stop it happening, it would simply drive it underground."

Examples such as this are, I believe, the key to undermining the feminists. They can and will dismiss others' stats and arguments until their dying breaths, but a short sentence or question such as this that exposes the hypocrisy and contradictions in their arguments so succinctly and in a manner easily comprehended by every fair-minded reader, exposes them for the extremists/fruitcakes so many of them are.

Willy Mingeworthy said...

I can't believe the other day some liberal communist baby-eating loon said that most women are driven to prostitution because of financial circumstance or to line the pocket of 'gangster capitalist human traffickers'. Clearly that's bollocks as this brainy bird showed. She could have worked down the local feminist book shop selling cakes, but no, she chose to make money and have some fun at the same time! This is free-market economies liberating women paying them to have a great time!

Pogo on that Marx! I bet he and his vindictive hairy-armpitted acolytes weren't getting enough so they thought they'd go and deny everyone else a bit of fun..

BrusselsLout said...


The problem is that even hairy armpitted monsters can find a ready and willing male partner! This is a measure of the strength of the male sex drive.

Moveover, it's also why prostitutes are in abundance and gigolos are scarce. (Moreover, gigolos are more a temporary fad amongst certain women. In other words it's a choice. It is not frustration as it is with men seeking prostitutes.)

How do we address this imbalance? The answer is obvious: legalise prostitution (and make the bints pay at least SOME tax). And also give legal protection to customers who have paid but then refused sex and threatened with violence by pimps -- a common practice. This is now set to get worse: the law of unintended-but-should-have-been-obvious fuckups.


True, the only tool we have at the moment in battling the iniquities of feminism is to bash their arguments with a bit of logic and fact. It works on talkboards. They hate logic and they detest facts.

But the problem on a larger scale is the media and politicians. The flipside of the same problem is the rather dense, unreflective public we have in feminised countries, whose common mind is set by the media and by politicians. How do we convince the average feminist-supporting male groveller that they are using his sex drive and chivalry against him to shit and piss in his face? It's moral judo that works every time.

We've got hurdles, mate, hurdles!

Anonymous said...


the 'women are often the aggressors' image on the top right of your page, do you have the original link at all?


Heretic said...

Yes. Click here

Just in case that doesn't work :