Academic Argues Prostitution Should Be Legalized Due to Lack of Sex for Modern Men – Femiservative Disagrees

Telegraph writer Rebecca Reid vents her fury over a (female) academic’s call for prostitution to be legalized on the grounds of a ‘male sexual deficit’.  What the academic (Catherine Hakim) means by this is that women have traditionally barted sex for monetry and other reward.  Reluctantly, as women in general are not as horny as men.  Sex for women is a tool, whereas sex for men is a need.  Unfortunately, due to ‘female emancipation’, women no longer have the need to barter their bodies for financial compensation, leading to a lack of availability for sex for men, and the consequent need to redress this by legalizing prostitution. (may be behind paywall)

Hakim postulates that prostitution should be fully legalised – to many a perfectly reasonable stance on the debate. But it’s her reasoning that makes the suggestion painfully offensive.

Disinterested in the potential social, economic and health benefits of legalising sex work, Hakim suggests that prostitution should be legalised, because the empowerment of women has created what she terms a “male sex deficit.”

In short because men need sex and modern women aren’t providing it.

What selfish creatures we’ve become. All that working and voting and striving for equality? Well apparently it’s led to an international blue-balls crisis that only legalised prostitution can cure….

… Hakim believes that as women become more empowered, and therefore more financially independent, they are likely to withdraw sexual availability further. She writes that the “male sex deficit” is likely to grow in the 21st century, as women become increasingly economically independent and withdraw from “sexual markets and relationships that they perceive to offer unfair bargains”.

Which tells you everything you need to know about her attitude towards sex.

No wonder she wants to legalise prostitution. She seems to think every sexually active woman already is one.

And of course, she is correct in that assumption – all women are essentially prostitutes, and feminism is a prostitute’s trade union/cartel which operates to prevent competition and to artificially keep the price of sex high.

A few of the reader’s comments below the article are priceless…


10 Comments on "Academic Argues Prostitution Should Be Legalized Due to Lack of Sex for Modern Men – Femiservative Disagrees"

  1. Here’s a comment I posted under the Telegraph article – I suspect it wont be approved :

    “No wonder she wants to legalise prostitution. She seems to think every sexually active woman already is one.”

    This is absolutely correct. Sex for women is a tool, sex for men is a need. Feminism is a trade union/cartel that operates to artificially preserve the price women can demand for sex and which seeks to prevent competition through the hijacking of the law and judicial process (criminalizing overt prostitution, raising the age of consent, creating hysterias over ‘sex abuse’ and even digging dead men out of their graves to be accused in media show trials etc). Never mind a ‘male sexual deficit’, the brutal feminist attempt to preserve the sexual bargaining power of women is destroying society and leading to a sexual holocaust against men before our very eyes.

    EVERY political cause and activity that feminists engage in has as its ultimate goal this end – the artificial raising or preservation of the price of sex. They repeatedly invent lies over prostitution and sex trafficking in order to jusitfy its criminalization and ever harsher punishments for men who seek prostitutes. It has nothing to do with protecting ‘victims’ but everything to do with removing sexual competition – younger, attractive females giving sex away too cheaply and consequently lowering the price of sex for other women, including above all their older or less attractive ‘sisters’. This is also why women are the biggest ‘slut shamers’ of other women and why feminists never raise even the merest protest at young girls being stoned to death in the Middle-East.

    This has always been the case – the first Suffragettes fought to criminalize prostitution and raise the age of consent before they even got the vote. And they were always public with their mision that winning the vote for women was only a means of controlling male sexuality through government.

    Hakim’s thesis is brilliant and in many ways correct, but I disagree that there is a ‘male sexual deficit’ as it ignores other sexual outlets for men which are rapidly increasing such as internet porn (despite feminist cartel attempts at criminalization). In fact, it seems to me that it is the price for sex that women can demand that is steadily being eroded by the advance of technology, and that this is leading to public and legislative hysterias over porn, prostitution, ‘sex abuse’ etc.

    If there is a male sexual deficit, it’s a result of men being too afraid to approach young atttractive women, due to feminist legislation and media hysterias. It’s also because even young women are steadily becoming hideously unattractive to men, both in appearance and manners, and in that way the number of sexually desirable AND available women is decreasing. This is also due to feminist sexual trade union attempts at removing competition by methods such as ‘fat acceptance’ (literally deforming and even killing young girls through the promotion of obesity).

  2. There really isn’t a good argument against the legalization of prostitution. And a prostitute is at least more honest about the deal she wants with a man than any non-prostitute woman, especially nowadays.

  3. I’d like to point out that not all women “charge money” for sex.

    Some use it as a manipulation tactic, and others use it for self-destructive purposes.

    At any rate – there does in fact seem to be a “price” – be it money or other – associated with having sex with most post-feminist women.

  4. All but a very small minority of American men are living in abject sexual poverty. I’m basically incel, relying on the odd hooker to get my needs met, and most men don’t look as good as me (20’s, tall, ripped, etc.).

    A female “friend” suggested I try pulling drunk sluts from Tinder. “Getting laid’s as easy as 1-2-3 teehee.” I tried explaining that the only girls I matched with were clinically obese, but she didn’t want to hear it.

    The thing that really bothers is there’s no discussion about this. You’re just expected to pretend that everything fine, we’re all getting laid, and everyone’s having a blast. I could easily lie like every other guy and claim I’m slaying hotties, and no one would question it. That’s a problem.

  5. I gave up years ago. It’s pretty much an impossibility when you reach the point we’re at nowadays. There is no bigger cock-blocker than modern man-hating Western society.

  6. @Jim – good comment.

    However, if you’re in your 20’s, tall, decent looking, in shape, then I honestly think your lack of action must be due to your location (Ameriskanksville) or you have difficulty with social interaction, at least with girls.

    I would take a long term view and try to move abroad, and if you have problems with social skills, patiently work out ways you can overcome them. You do have time on your side, at least as aging is concerned. The bigger question is what kind of legal situation etc society will be in in another 5 or 10 years, even in places like Eastern Europe or Asia.

    If you came to Eastern Europe and had the confidence to approach girls, I’m pretty sure you could get laid regularly quite easily with above average looking girls aged 16 – 23.

    BTW, prostitutes in Eastern Europe generally cost around $20 for half-an-hour (I’m talking about incalls to their apartments, shower beforehand etc). Most of them look like genuine 19 year old pornstars, although they’re usually soulless bitches, but you’re just banging them after all.

  7. @Jim

    I’m Dutch and I have the same problem. Dutch women especially of academic descent are horrible entitled psychopaths that expect, or have only
    ever ran into, completely docile and submissive males without any sexual willpower whatsoever.
    The trick is to not become a victim of the emasculation process they call ‘friendship’ but then still you have to not object to how
    they treat men in general. The only personality that can do both these things is a two-faced psychopath or bully.
    Nobody is discussing this problem because everyone who does immediately runs the risk of being bullied and eventually ostracized from the
    social group.
    The attempt to discuss this problem and consequently attempt to remove the taboo that hides it is one of the most important acts of resistance
    to the sexual holocaust you can perform. No matter the bullying, the shaming etc. persist and you might achieve critical mass.
    I’m 37, very sexually attractive (Not a lie!), good job, lots of hobbies and interests, excellent guitar player etc. and yet incapable of getting
    women because I refuse to be a two-faced psychopath bully. I despise those entitled princesses, those soulless underdeveloped unphilosophical trivial
    pathetic little personalities.
    For compensation I go to sex clubs as well. Once I had sex with one that was acting exactly like an entitled princess, even though she was a prostitute,
    and at first really didn’t want to have anything to do with me. And because of that I of course absolutely had to fuck her.
    First she just tried to make me cum as soon as possible but I knew what she was trying to do and I have excellent self-control and demanded penetration.
    Because I knew I was fucking an entitled princess I had a very good orgasm. Justice!
    And then afterwards she was the nicest person in the world and we actually had a good conversation. Go figure!

    The more the taboos surrounding these subjects disappear, the more exposed the sexual holocaust becomes.
    Join the resistance, or die! The holocaust is worldwide!

  8. Adversary:
    Amerobitches do this too, except they take the schizophrenia themselves. They want submissive males for boyfriends/husbands and thuggish baboons for sex partners. Typically, they have both.

    I wondered about the situation in Western Europe a lot, because I hear pro-and-con about it. Some have told me it’s not that bad outside the elitist/affluent classes.

Comments are closed.