Taipei, Oct. 21 (CNA) Women’s rights groups criticized the government Friday as failing to produce constructive policies on prostitution, ignoring the “structural evil” of the sex trade and seeking to legalize red-light districts.
They said the Cabinet’s decision in July to amend the Social Order and Maintenance Act to legalize prostitution within special zones was in disregard of the views of all five municipalities in the country.
At a press conference held under the theme “When Will Structural Evil End,” the group leaders called on voters to reject those presidential and legislative candidates who support the prostitution bill. Taipei, Oct. 21 (CNA) Women’s rights groups criticized the government Friday as failing to produce constructive policies on prostitution, ignoring the “structural evil” of the sex trade and seeking to legalize red-light districts.
They said the Cabinet’s decision in July to amend the Social Order and Maintenance Act to legalize prostitution within special zones was in disregard of the views of all five municipalities in the country.
At a press conference held under the theme “When Will Structural Evil End,” the group leaders called on voters to reject those presidential and legislative candidates who support the prostitution bill.
BUENOS AIRES, Feb 25, 2011 (IPS) – An Argentine government proposal to crack down on clients benefiting from the trafficking of persons for the purposes of sexual exploitation has unleashed a heated debate between feminist organisations that support the idea and sex workers who are opposed to it.
The proposal by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights has the support of organisations whose aim is to abolish the commercial sex trade. These groups want prostitution to be condemned as a form of exploitation, and are calling for measures like the promotion of alternative sources of employment.
The concept of going after the client has received the backing of the United Nations and the Organisation of American States (OAS), which will study it to recommend its inclusion in the national laws of each country…
…Trafficking in persons is “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion…for the purpose of exploitation,” according to the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, which has been signed and ratified by Argentina.
“Prostitution is not decent work, because people are subjected to humiliation, and they never know what to expect in each transaction,” Altschul said. “And in the case of trafficking, it is obvious that sexual exploitation is involved.”
Many women’s rights groups thus believe that not only the clients of trafficking victims should be penalised, but anyone who pays for sex.
But the Association of Women Prostitutes of Argentina (AMMAR), which has more than 4,000 members, is opposed to the proposal and has promised to make its voice heard at the next OAS General Assembly, to be held in June in El Salvador.
“This confuses trafficking, which we condemn, with sex work, which is an option followed by some women, as consenting adults,” Elena Reynaga, president of AMMAR, told IPS.
She also complained that the “abolitionist” groups have not listened to their concerns. “They don’t respect us, they don’t listen to us,” Altschul said. “Bans only hurt us and expose us more than we already are.”
And why do feminists not respect the wishes of the sex workers they are supposedly trying to protect? Because it’s all a sham. Because feminists regard sex workers as cockroaches. It simply serves their purposes to portray prostitutes as victims, and themselves as guardian angels. The rape of the male would not be possible otherwise.
In better news, and demonstrating that South America isn’t yet completely lost to the femi-beasts, Human-Stupidity reports that Brazil has become the first country to outlaw parental alienation.
In the week that a British serial killer who murdered at least three prostitutes was jailed for life, the Association of Police Officers called for a debate on the relaxation of prostitution laws.
There is more chance of hell freezing over than the sexual trade union ever allowing men easier access to cheap, anonymous sex. What on Earth, in their selfish brood mare eyes, has preventing the slaughter of sex workers got to do with promoting the ‘rights’ of women??
some people involved in sex work want more fundamental changes to the legislation surrounding prostitution, such as designated red-light zones or decriminalised brothels.In the UK selling sex in itself is not illegal, but brothels and street prostitution are against the law.
“It means the people that are there to protect you, can also arrest you,” said Rosie Campbell of the UK Network of Sex Work Projects, “so [sex workers] can be reluctant to go the police.”
In Blackpool the authorities have been cracking down on prostitution.
Joanne Andrew, who owns a massage parlour in the town, was recently convicted of running a brothel.
The law only allows one person to sell sex in a property. To avoid a further prosecution she says women have had to leave the relative safety of her building, to work on the streets.
“I had a girl who worked for me a while ago, who was assaulted and dragged into a van by three guys,” said Ms Andrew.
“She came back and asked me for a job but I couldn’t give her one.”
No one from Blackpool Council was available to discuss the issue of safety but in a statement they said: “We are committed to cleaning up Blackpool and that includes a zero tolerance approach to illegal activities such as prostitution.
“This will involve taking the strongest possible action, including prosecution.”
For most police forces prostitution is not a priority.
With shrinking budgets the police tend to concentrate on cases where they suspect people have been trafficked or forced into sex work – although different forces have different strategies.
Rather than updating the previous post concerning the Dutch decision to raise the minimum age for prostitution, I’ve decided to devote a new one to putting the affair into some proper context. The politicians who are quoted as being for this new law all seem to be male white knights and they include the far right Dutch ‘Islamaphobe’ Geert Wilders. The background is a recent moral panic that has taken hold of the Netherlands, and one that is in fact emerging in the UK and Germany as well. In Holland, it is known as the ‘lover boy’ phenomenon.
It appears to be a spin off of the sex trafficking panic itself, and follows the same tried and tested pattern of feminist lobbying based upon primal fear mongering. It employs a selection of harrowing anecdotes, together with incredible statistics seemingly plucked straight out of the air. Lobbying then results in quickly passed anti-sex laws that just so happen to be supportive of the sexual needs and interests of the lobbier. What is most interesting in this particular sex panic, is that whilst including all the usual suspects – trafficking, child abuse, the internet, another contemporary ingrediant is thrown into the witches brew. ‘Islamaphobia’. Hence the eager support of Geert Wilders and his now very influential populist parliamentary party.
Although it tends to be only expressed openly in right wing blogs, the underlying tacit assumption behind the ‘lover boy’ panic is that this is about muslim ‘paedos’ forcing their underage girlfriends into becoming prostitutes. In the Netherlands, the figure of 5,000 is being bandied about. Notice how the figures quoted by sexual trade union lobbyists regarding numbers of alleged victims is always nice and round – 5,000. Not 3,843 or even 5,200, but 5,000. Just as the number of women who were going to be trafficked into the world cup was a nice, tidy, and eminently quotable, 100,000.
Currently, I can only spend a few hours a week devoted to this blog and to anti-feminist work. Sadly, I am not in a position to deliver a researched critique into this figure or the truth or otherwise of the lover boy syndrome. All I know is that laws that harm men (and that also restrict the freedom of young women and girls) should be based upon rigerous study, investigation, logic and argument. Instead, it seems that a particular Dutch woman – Anita De Witt, has ignited this panic with a few anecdotal reports of alleged victims, set up a lobbying group, and within months convinced the Dutch government that a new law targeting men, ‘protecting the kiddies’ (which now includes 20 year old women), as well as having undertones of ‘stopping the Islamification of Europe’, is a sure fire vote winner.
But just one look at the homepage of her quickly formed lobbying group – StopLoverBoysNu, leads me to conclude that it most probably is the usual load of pants involving feminist self-rationalisations for stopping younger females from taking advantage of their own youth and beauty to earn money.
Just take a look at the following ‘ways to spot a victim’ that appear on her campaign group’s front page and tell me that these don’t apply to 90% of girls the world over at some point of their adolescence. Psychologists and health professionals normally refer to them as the typical symptoms of undergoing puberty in the 21st century, rather than ‘probable victims of lover boys’. In which case, if we lived in a civilised, non gynocratic white knight society, women like Anita De Witt would be locked securely away in asylums, or at least prosecuted for unfounded hate speech against men (and young women), and/or possibly even attempted rape :
A sudden obsession with sexs and deviant standards. A sudden interest for particular boys or older boys/men, lots of new contacts Extra social behaviour ( they don’t want you to find out). Fight with the people who she loves the most (family, friends etc.). Problems at home. Changes emotions very quickly, doesn’t see how situations can change. Tired and loses weight (has to work at night) Wears different clothes and make up, often very clean and challenging. Psychosomatic complaints. Selfinfliction. Low self asteam, no realistic self image. Easy to influence, can’t or don’t dare to indicate borders. Gets calls all the time. Sometimes have multiple cellphones, takes them with her all the time(even in the shower and to bed). Taken from en to school by someone with a car or motorbike. Depressive. Starts smoking, or smoke more. Drink, smoke weed or other drugs, doesn’t eat well. Lot’s of money or expensive things(via loverboy or lovergirl) Going out in extreem ways(most of the time it’s her work place). Hangs out a lot, there are friends that fill up the emptyspot at home. Extremely happy (cover up what’s really going on). Withdraw a lot, sudden crying fits, rage (agression). Exaggerated stories, acting tough, seeks attention that way. Behaves different at other places (different worlds) Irregular schoolvisits, got other things to do, too tired etc. ‘Walkaway-behavior’ Avoid subjects like prostitution. Seems like having no identity
Even being ‘extremely happy’ is a definite sign that your blonde 13 year old daughter is being forced to have anal sex with strangers for 20 euros a time by gangs of muslim paedos. It must be good to live in a nation as progressive and generally fucked up as the Netherlands. A decade ago the most liberal society on Earth, now caught up in the twin anti-enlightenment nightmares of feminism and Islamification… and the inevitable muddied and retarded white knight far right reactionary politics. I can only attribute the results of the survey that Dutch people are supposedly the most content in the world to the fact that they are probably all smoking the weed. That Dutch men are fleeing their country on a scale that dwarfs even the white flight of the Brits, is a far more comprehensible reality.
The online marketplace Craigslist has closed the controversial “adult services” listing in the US.
The company has not said why it took the decision, but it has faced an ongoing barrage of criticism from attorneys general and advocacy groups.
They have claimed the listing was a virtual tool for pimps and prostitutes.
Another notable victory for the feminist and American conservative closet pederast alliance.
Restored photograph and added useful links and resources to the bottom of my key article ‘The Sexual Trade Union’. (If you have any links or resources yourself to share, please leave them in the comment section below the article).
A ‘man of 21 with learning disabilities has been granted taxpayers’ money to fly to Amsterdam and have sex with a prostitute.
His social worker says sex is a ‘human right’ for the unnamed individual – described as a frustrated virgin.
His trip to a brothel in the Dutch capital’s red light district next month is being funded through a £520million scheme introduced by the last government to empower those with disabilities.
They are given a personal budget and can choose what services this is spent on.
Good! This is the most heartwarming story I’ve read in a long time, save for the predictable outrage from the sexual trade union’s conservative mouth piece – the Daily Mail.
I spoke in my last post about the effects of the free sexual market in producing grotesquely varied outcomes in terms of ‘winners and losers’. Feminism, and the overturning of ‘patriarchy’, has been the response of the mass of unattractive female losers. The ‘Mystery Method’ and Game has been the response of male ‘losers’ (high IQ white betas).
In his novels, the French writer Michel Houellebecq discusses various solutions to the unfair outcomes produced by the free sexual market. In Platform, an economic solution is proposed, consisting of a heretical defence of western sexual tourism to Asia. Why shouldn’t wealthy, but obese or old westerners, trade their own sought after goods with the poor, yet sexually attractive members of Asian societies? In the earlier and more popular Atomised, a more radical, femi-nazi type solution is presented – the abolition of sexual desire altogether, brought about through genetic intervention. Even more inflammatory, he playfully suggests at times that teenage girls should ‘justify their spoilt existance’ by being encouraged to trade their sexual beauty for the gifts of the older men whose taxes already support their extended adolescent lifestyles.
Now, I wish to make clear I am speaking as an ‘anti-feminist’ and all round agent provocateur, rather than as a ‘men’s rights supporter’. But I agree wholeheartedly that the state should have no more or less right to redress the imbalances of a free sexual market than it does presently to correct those of the economic free market.
Why shouldn’t those with beauty and youth be encouraged to enter into mutually advantageous relationships with the less attractive, but wealthier (an example of this is ‘compensation dating’ in Japan)? After a year of working 40 hour weeks, I’m now earning close to $2,000 a week. Why should my hard earned work go towards supporting the family of 5 on welfare down the road through the taxes that I pay, and yet if I offered to take the 17 year old daughter out to an expensive dinner, with an understanding that my sexual needs would be catered for afterwards, I would face prosecution as a sex offender (payment for sex with a minor – even though above the age of consent)?
Of course, as I have always argued, the law that would prosecute me is itself a state attempt at redressing the imbalances produced by the free sexual market. But it is one that ONLY addresses the sexual disadvantages of older, unattractive women. Because I cannot use my modest wealth to ‘buy’ sexual favours from the young and attractive, I am more likely to end up in a relationship with an older, unattractive woman who will herself profit from my income.
The actions of those English councils might appear to indicate the birth of a more enlightened and caring sexual age. But the disabled young men with learning difficulties are actually being put at risk of being prosecuted for ‘paying for sex’ if it turns out that those Amsterdam prostitutes were trafficked (or more likely if they claim to have been trafficked to avoid deportation as illegal immigrants).
This world, created by the feminists and their allies, both conservative and cultural marxist, is full of Orwellian contradictions. We hold the highest value to be the reduction of human misery and inequality. Few object to disabled people having financial compensation, privilages, and other support from the state, even the right to ‘compete’ at Olympic Games. Yet the idea that sex is a human right, rather than something that must be arduously won in the free sexual jungle, is something that strikes most as absurd. Even the feminists have to pretend that their sexual trade union laws are attempts to save ‘victims’ rather than honestly admitting that they are nothing more than attempts to preserve the sexual ‘rights’ of older, unattractive women in that cruel and ruthless sexual market.
Michel Houellebecq points out the contradictions inherent in a social democratic society where sex has become a commoddity. In such a world, we ought to encourage classes of 16 year old schoolgirls to visit retirement homes and to give the lonely old men there one last blowjob before the dying of the light. In my view, such a world would be fairer, more beautiful, and definitely more consistent than our present one.
Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.
And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.
To feminists, and indeed, to the vast majority of the female sex who give feminists the power to speak on their behalf, morality is little more than ensuring the reproductive and sexual interests of a post peak fertility female who relies on heavy parental investment from a committed male partner. The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.
Feminists tend to dislike Darwinism almost as much as the evangelical creationist does. Yet you could pretty much feed into a computer equipped with a Darwinian algorithm the reproductive needs of a 9 month labouring female simian in a sexual jungle and you would be pretty much guaranteed to find the computer would accurately predict EVERYTHING that a feminist finds ‘objectifying, exploitative, abusive etc.etc’.
The infamous Amanda (see posts below) takes umbrage at my description of her blog as a piece of sexual trade unionism. In fact every single one of her posts bears some relation to sex and reproduction seen through the eyes and vested interests of an unattractive post peak-fertility female. Even the title of her blog gives the game away.
If feminists like Amanda could point to just one cause of theirs that DECREASES their own individual sexual power (relative, for example, to that of a beautiful 18 year old) instead of INCREASING it, then I’d swallow my words. Anyone who thinks that will ever happen though, has probably never read the history of feminism, and certainly not its first or second wave origins.
A comment was posted below my ‘All Feminists are Rapists’ YouTube video the other day which made a very intelligent point that I’ve been meaning to discuss for some time :
“Traditional” right-wing religious women are EXACTLY the same as the left-wing feminists are. They just use different mumbo-jumbo to achieve the? same ends. For example, both ‘radical’ & ‘traditional’ women oppose any kind of sexual competition e.g. prostitution, pornography, etc. Feminists blabber about ‘patriarchy, equality…’ while right wing fems quote bible verses. Same b.s. different packaging.
And this, in essence, is the difference between somebody like Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton.
..And this is why, in my honest opinion, the men’s movement will likely never be more than a damage limitation exercise in terms of the steady erosion of men’s rights. Men have as many conceptions of justice and of what is important in life as there are stars in the sky. Women tend to have only one. And this is the case whether they are right or left, religious or atheist, conservative or ‘progressive’. Men debate the ends whereas women only ever dispute the means.
It is also why I am so sceptical of ‘sympathetic feminists’ or even, unfortunately, women per se joining our movement. Invariably, they are confused feminists, dimly aware that most women in their position are unhappier than ever, coupled with a vague awareness that this requires not more economic and political independence for women, but rather a simple closure of the free sexual market and a return to traditionalism. We, the men’s rights movement, are simply a means to achieving that selfish conservative end.
I don’t want to close on such pessimistic reflections. I still have faith that the ever increasing speed of technological progress will eventually render the sexual conflict between men and women obsolete and irrelevant. Feminism has always been about playing catch-up in the quest to stop new technology from widening the free sexual market and putting the sexual interests of unattractive women at risk. As progress speeds up, one must hope that this will become increasingly impossible. To take one example. Anyone with eyes and ears will have noticed a marked ‘return to puritanism’ over the last year alone with regard to the media witchunts of ‘cheating’ husbands such as Tiger Woods. Quite possibly, even probably, within a couple of decades, the majority of people, at least young people, will be aware that they can be expected to live to remarkably long ages. When people can expect to live to be 150, 200, perhaps much longer than that, what becomes of the idea of marriage and life-long commitment? Would we simply see a formalized acceptance of the mating patterns we are increasingly seeing today – a woman demands exclusive commitment from a man for a decade or two, then dumps him and takes the kids and a massive divorce pay off to another male? Hopefully not. At least, in the long run, even women might see that their primitive Savannah sexual codes will become increasingly irrelevant and out of place in an unimaginably altered high-tech future. Perhaps even they will demand, through genetic or pharmaceutical intervention if necessary, the God given ability of a man to partake in sexual pleasure without demanding that the object of desire becomes his exclusive instrumentalized property for life.
Useful Links and Resources :
Lionel Tiger, the man behind the recent male studies conference and author of ‘The Decline of Males’, takes part in a debate on whether or not feminists should be allowed to criminilize men who pay for sex.
A real voice for men.