Yes, don’t be shocked but it’s been claimed that many women mix with local men whilst enjoying their holidays. But relax, because it’s so so different to that nasty sex-tourism thing that men do. I mean it’s not like the boys are prostitutes or anything, and it does seem fair that if they take time off work to show you around then a lady would buy them a meal or small gift. Or two.
Still those MRA scumbags rubbish anything that women value. So how have other feminists explained these very special holiday experiences?
“When women pay men for sex, it doesn’t have the same social effect because there is no history of women enslaving men” (Source)
““female sex tourism” oversimplifies the motives of these women and that “romance tourism” explains the complex nature of what these women are engaging themselves in while involved in romance tours. They also explain that the expression “female sex tourism”, “serves to perpetuate gender roles and reinforce power relations of female subordination, romance tourism in Jamaica provides an arena for change” (Source)
“Once, sometimes twice, a month I meet up with Justin, a 36-year-old divorcé. We go out for a meal and maybe to a club before spending the night in a hotel … But what differentiates our dates from the norm is that I pay for Justin’s company, including having sex with him” (Source)
Firstly, you may have noticed an abundance of articles in the mainstream media in recent times concerning personal commercial arrangements known as a sugar-daddy relationship. Indeed some media outlets such as news.com.au run stories on this subject, or similar themes, every couple of weeks … see recent examples here and here and here and here, here and here. Oh, and this one’s a classic (13 April 2021).
Today however I was prompted to create a post addressing this topic after reading a feminist journalist’s interpretation of the sugar-daddy phenomenon:
Kasey Edwards doesn’t think that sugar-daddy arrangements are a bad idea because they are, you know, wrong. It’s not because they involve women debasing themselves via voluntarily entering into a parasite/host relationship. And it’s not because these women aren’t walking out into the world standing on their own two, empowered, feet.
No, such arrangements are a bad idea because the women involved might be held in some way (shudder) accountable if exposed. It was suggested that former sugar-daddies would blackmail their babies as “there’s seemingly no downside for powerful men who have sexual arrangements with less powerful women“.
Gee, I bet there would be more than a few ‘powerful’ men who would disagree with that assessment of where most of the risk lies. Prince Andrew … hello? And here’s a recent Australian example.
The cost of exposure could be either tangible (reduced employment opportunity), or more intangible (slut-shaming). Of course, both of these forms of chastisement might be imposed by other women – especially in the latter case.
Oh, and sugar-baby arrangements are also a bad idea because Kasey sees them as a “cynical abuse of male power“.
Nevertheless, the likely feminist defence there would be that that doesn’t count, a ‘rare aberration’ yada yada, borne from ‘internalised misogyny’ yada yada, and being a ‘justifiable push-back against male oppression’ yada yada.
What follows now is a selection of articles and perspectives on this topic. There are also a couple of sources dealing with a somewhat related practice known as ‘rinsing‘.
“I’m always getting slut-shamed and discriminated against because of how I look, she said. Honestly, most of the hate is coming from women, which is always so disappointing. Women need to be supporting each other no matter what, not pulling each other down”.
Some time ago I came across an item in ‘Inside Man‘, a rather good UK publication that focused on men’s issues. In its September 2014 edition it featured an article entitled Nine out of ten people pictured in charity posters are women. (Sadly the web site no longer exists, although the article is still available via web.archive.org).
The article informed us that charities are loathe to use pictures of men in their posters and advertising campaigns because of an empathy gap that exists in the community. Pictures of poor men just don’t elicit anywhere near the same amount of sympathy as do pictures of poor women.
“So what does this tell us about public attitudes towards men, women, boys and girls? Big charities aren’t stupid. They know what sells. The top 1,000 charities in the UK raise £11.5 billion every year in voluntary donations. Charity is big, BIG business and big business knows that all of us, men and women, are collectively more tolerant of the harm that happens to men and boys. If you want to raise money, you’ve more chance of doing it if you tell people women and girls are suffering.
And what message does this send to men and boys? That we are less valued by society, that we are not cared for as much as women, that we are not as vulnerable, that we don’t need the help of others, that we are tough and strong and should “man up” and get on with our lives and not expect help when we face problems in life. Is it any wonder that men are less likely to access help and support when they need it, when the constant message that we give to men and boys collectively is that we don’t need and don’t deserve help and support from others?”
I included a link to this article in tweets I sent to organisations such as ‘Plan International’, in response to various gender-biased campaigns they promoted online.
One example was a campaign that focused on providing clean drinking water for women and girls (google on ‘clean water for women’ for many examples of similar campaigns). Clean water for poor men and boys? Not so important it would seem, though I doubt that’s because they are sitting in deck chairs quaffing Moet.
There have been other campaigns related to the effects of global warming, for example. Apparently problems such as global warming have a greater affect women/girls, with men/boys protected by way of some kind of force-field.
Oh, and if we needed a reminder as to how little a male life is considered to be worth, who could forget #BringBackOurGirls?
And then today I came across a reddit mensrights discussion thread on this same theme. It’s entitled:
“In countries facing conflicts and crises, women & girls often eat least and last. Their specific needs must be prioritized in humanitarian response efforts.”
“Where women are absent, peace does not prevail” (28 October 2022) with full statement here wherein the Australian Government proudly informs the world that “Today’s topic is not one for debate. The evidence is clear that pathways to peace are paved with women’s resilience and leadership”. Cringe. Be a good boy and drink your glass of feminist Kool-aid.
Truss says she is “proud that we have rebalanced our international development budget” and focused it more on humanitarian aid, and women and girls. (19 October 2022) UK Source
“Our new four-year Strategic Partnership Framework with Australia and the commitment of AU$31.2 million to core resources are vital to UN Women’s ability to support gender equality and women’s empowerment” (19 June 2022) Source: A tweet from UN Women
Stronger partnerships with women in Southeast Asia (1 April 2022) ‘Women Together’ is $300 million program to “focus on building women’s economic empowerment, increasing women’s leadership in regional peace and stability and realise women’s and girl’s rights with a focus on violence prevention”
Russian soldiers are committing a genocide against boys & men in Ukraine. This has been picked up by the media, but they are avoiding saying the gender. They’re just “civilians” or “bodies”. Twitter thread (4 April 2022)
The silence about this (re: military draft) gender inequality is greatest from countries that profess to have a feminist foreign policy (Source) Certainly nothing has been said by any Australian politician or government agency.
“The Ambassador for Women and Girls raises the importance of addressing sexual and gender-based violence, increasing economic opportunities for women, promoting women’s leadership, the critical importance of promoting positive social norms and the rights of girls.”
A selection of foreign aid organisations that fail to address the welfare needs of men
See globalgoals.org and their twitter stream (@TheGlobalGoals) for many examples of sexist statements and programs
See GirlRising and their twitter stream (@GirlRising) for more of the same
See ActionAid and their twitter stream (@ActionAid) for more of the same. Note the section called ‘The Facts’ contained debunked factoids – except Point 3 (violence) which if true is also true for men, who face far more violence overall)
World Vision article prepared by news.com.au entitled ‘Why gender equality is about basic rights‘ only to then launch into a discussion of why (only) girls need help, and ignoring the fact that poor boys face the same challenges as poor girls, e.g. forced to work young, forced to marry young, genital mutilation, etc.
The article concludes with “All children can be vulnerable, and girls face particularly harsh realities because of their gender. That’s why World Vision has started a movement to sponsor 1000 girls by International Day of the Girl. You can join us now and help a girl in poverty live free of fear. Sponsor a girl today.” (September 2019)
“The federal government has unveiled what it is calling “Canada’s first feminist international-assistance policy,” with plans to eventually ensure that at least 95 per cent of the country’s foreign aid helps improve the lives of women and girls”
“Despite cries that gender is as much about men as it is about women, most project proposals or documents referring to gender will mention women, but little about men. If they do talk about men, they do so in terms of their relations with and respect for women.”
“A gender equality perspective in humanitarian assistance takes into account that:
• Crises affect women, girls, boys and men differently; • Existing power inequalities between women and men exacerbates during crisis; • Women, girls, men and boys have different needs and different coping mechanisms; • Women, girls, men and boys have different opportunities to benefit from support; and • Women and girls are an important resource in designing and delivering humanitarian assistance.”
Sounds almost fair. But in terms of outputs this model is imbued with gynocentric bias, which manifests itself via a plethora of programs aimed at women/girls. There are few/no programs directed at men/boys, this being rationalised through the belief that they can cope better/are less affected/that supporting them may worsen the problem, etc.
“Women must believe that their safety and rights are worth defending – even when the odds feel stacked against them for involvement in sex work. Clients and police need these messages too. We must create an environment that tells women they do not deserve to be abused, that someone cares about their safety and well-being. We are invigorated, inspired, and challenged to transform a world that perpetrates violence and blames victims to one in which freedom, safety, health and human rights prevail for all.”
Presumably written by the author without a hint of irony. Female victims matter, male ones don’t. No mention in the write-up of this project about the violence experienced by male and transgender sex-workers … why? Could the answer be ‘Gynocentrism manifested by way of feminist bias’?
Read down to see “By the end of 2015, the three West African countries most affected by Ebola – Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone – had a total of 8,703 cases of the virus in women compared to 8,333 in men. But the sex tally of those infected does not reveal the social impact of the disease on local populations.”
“… The research by Lara Stemple at the University of California doesn’t only show that male sexual violence is a component of wars all over the world, it also suggests that international aid organisations are failing male victims. Her study cites a review of 4,076 NGOs that have addressed wartime sexual violence. Only 3% of them mentioned the experience of men in their literature. “Typically,” Stemple says, “as a passing reference.””
Both the terminology and nature of spousal maintenance/alimony varies from one country to the next, and even within the same country there may be significant variation from one state to the next. The primary focus on this post is the situation in the UK, Australia and the USA.
“The family law researcher observed 493 judicial separation and divorce cases in 2010, which are ordinarily held in private. But she couldn’t find a single case where the wife was ordered to pay maintenance for children or a spouse, and had only seen the courts order joint custody in two cases.”
I just love how a “prominent family lawyer” recently emerged from the woodwork to call for new pre-nuptial laws in Britain: “Lady Deech said on Radio 4’s Sunday Programme: ‘Lots of young women these days are working, earning well, and would feel it extremely unfair if a young man who they marry and perhaps leaves them is going to take with him a sizeable chunk of what they have worked so hard for.”
Oh, extremely Baroness! Presumably you’ve silently observed countless men get fleeced over past decades, but now that some women have moved into the position of primary bread-winner in the family, it’s suddenly time to act. Oh and have a read about what happened to Ms Luckwell.
And now for a bit of male-shaming:
“Bristol’s rep David Martin slammed Meyer for seeking child support despite being a decorated member of the Marine Corps that has received the Congressional Medal of Honor. “My values are such that a real American hero doesn’t ask for child support,” said Martin.” (Source)
Let’s set aside the dictionary definition of feminism. And all the nice cuddly things feminists are quoted as saying in the mainstream media. There are other significant considerations or issues of concern to real-world feminists. But even though they may feel deeply about them, they rarely admit to it. This post is about one such issue. It’s referred to under different names including women’s sexual currency, erotic capital, or the ‘pussy cartel’.
Have you ever wondered why feminists have such a visceral reaction to the topic of western men with foreign wives, prostitution (involving men paying women for sex), men viewing pornography, men using sex aids for solo pleasure, and MGTOW?
That reaction is summed up succinctly in this post in a discussion thread about men with foreign wives:
“Anything that gives men more options seems to piss them off. Also why they despise prostitution. They really seem to think that women derive value from sex, and treat any women who aren’t trading it for things as they see fit, the way a union views scabs.” (Source)
Yes, sure, that’s just one person commenting about a one particular topic. But I have seen the same suggestion put forward, often simply as an aside, by others in many separate discussions about the various topics listed above.
Granted this does not apply to all women who identify as feminists, but please let’s not divert into the maze that is NAFALT. Likewise I won’t be side-tracked into discussions as to the fairness or appropriateness of women choosing to sleep with alpha males rather than ‘nice guys’, or remaining celibate, or whatever. Women can choose to do pretty much whatever they want with their own bodies. And, aside from women in sexual servitude in third-world countries, women exercise this choice every day of their lives. Good for them.
What I do object to though, is the denial and hypocrisy surrounding the reality of modern-day sexual mores, and of feminists claiming the moral high ground when often so very poorly qualified to do so. And to those who acknowledge reality but attempt to lay responsibility at the feet of the ‘patriarchy’, I say nonsense! Utter nonsense!
In the film ‘A Few Good Men‘, a ‘Code Red’ was said to be an unofficial military order to rough up an uncooperative soldier, with the aim of enforcing and strengthening team unity. Who remembers Jack Nicholson (as Col. Jessep) bellowing the line: “You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.”.
Is it true in fact that feminists recognise that a woman’s strongest (and increasingly now their only significant) bargaining chip is their power to grant or withhold sexual relief?
Is it not also that feminists see people who fall into the categories mentioned above (e.g. men with Asian wives, etc) as devaluing the sexual currency of women, and loathe them for it? Often even seeking retribution against them?
Does the feminist version of a ‘Code Red’ consist of a package of shaming tactics? For example, slut-shaming for prostitutes and party girls. Shaming of men with Asian wives with comments like “you couldn’t get a woman in your own country” and “you’re too weak to handle a union of equals“.
This theme is explored further in the following papers:
What exactly is prostitution? Most people immediately focus on the version of prostitution that we usually see portrayed in the media. This is about men going to brothels or picking up women standing by the road, and purchasing an hour of their time in exchange for engaging in various sexual activities.
The first thing wrong about this picture, however, is that in real life the prostitute and the customer may be either male or female or transgender.
The second thing to note is that the payment for services rendered sometimes occurs after the act, sometimes well after. That payment may not be in cash either, it might (for example) take the form of a gift or gifts. In such cases we begin to move into the realm of mistresses or ‘sugar babies‘ or ‘paid dating‘, for example.
From here on in we launch into even murkier philosophical waters. For example some people argue that spousal support payments as routinely ordered by divorce courts are, at least in some circumstances, a form of prostitution (delayed payment for services earlier rendered). Some feminists, like Jane Caro, have even suggested that marriage itself is a form of prostitution (see here and here). Others go further and say that any form of paid work is a form of prostitution, in that work involves someone selling the use of their body by the hour.
What is the feminist perspective on prostitution? Well it depends on the particular feminist you are speaking to, but most see it as highly undesirable and indicative of patriarchal exploitation of women. In keeping with feminist discussion on many other issues, feminists routinely ignore those aspects of reality that don’t support their narrative. Thus they assiduously look the other way when it comes to male prostitutes, woman who pay for prostitutes, women who operate trafficking or prostitution businesses, and women (with other employment/income options) who freely choose to work as prostitutes.
Driven by their narrative, feminists in various countries have lobbied to have the act of selling sex decriminalised whilst making the act of buying sex a crime (example). And again, in this particular debate both feminists and media alike keep discussion focussed on female prostitutes and male clients.
In a September 2014 discussion on an Australian TV program, Kay Hymowitz raised feminist hackles by questioning why prostitution warranted being a major feminist issue, at least in part because of the relatively small number of women who were prostitutes. One of the other panelists then stated that it warranted being a major issue because one in four men used prostitutes (cue applause). So it’s all about the ‘menz’, huh? Comments like this reinforce the view that a significant factor underlying female opposition to prostitution is the notion of devaluing women’s ‘sexual currency‘.
Please review the selected linked articles below for further information:
It is both an affront and most ironic that the author implies that expat men committing suicide in Thailand are doing so out of feelings of guilt (supposedly due to exploiting bar girls). These suicides are a real issue, but I would wager that the cause is the legacy of a life-time of exposure to the toxic anti-male environment in their countries of origin, this leading to substance abuse and general feelings of failure and hopelessness.
In reality many western feminists could not give a damn about the welfare of Asian sex-workers. Their real agenda is male demonization esp. in relating to curtailing the expression of male sexuality. Some background on that aspect in this blog post.
The author of this article conveniently fails to mention that:
plenty of western women also travel to Asia for sex (both commercial and non-commercial)
many Thai prostitutes are male or transgender (and are apparently not worth ‘rescuing’?)
many if not most men who travel to Asia don’t have sex with prostitutes
It is absurd to suggest that “Australian men [are] among the largest contributors to sex tourism in southeast Asia”. The reality is that Caucasian clients are simply the icing on the cake of the Thai sex industry, and Australians only one of many groups represented amongst tourist/expat clients.
Many (or even most) of these so-called sex-worker “rescue” organisations are either woefully ineffective in terms of getting girls out of the industry permanently – or they are out-and-out scams (example).
‘Fembot’ is a term used to describe a robot with the outward appearance of a female human, the Wikipedia entry for which can be found here.
I saw a peculiar documentary on TV in which one of the people being interviewed was a guy who had a life-size plastic girlfriend. He referred to women as either “organics” or “synthetics”. He preferred synthetics. Well, OK, whatever floats your boat I guess. But this guy’s girlfriend has nothing on what’s just around the corner, as discussed in this article.
One would imagine though, that only a small percentage of men (or women) would be content with a robot as a partner. Fembots are thus unlikely to completely replace the need for human companionship. What they will do however, possibly in conjunction with virtual reality technology, is increasingly provide a fuss-free outlet for the human libido.
I wonder how the emergence and growing popularity of fembots might alter the status quo with regards to various aspects of the gender debate? To what extent, for example, will fembots alter or replace conventional dating/marriage, facilitate a MGTOW lifestyle, or undermine the so-called ‘pussy cartel‘?
I suspect that most feminists would consider a world in which fembots were plentiful as a paradise for misogynists. Indeed, the Wiki definition linked above includes reference to the term ‘misogyny’. The entry for the term ‘dildo‘ neglects to mention the term ‘misandry’ … yet another double standard. (More on that perspective here)
And as sure as god made little green apples there is already a feminist push-back involving calls for bans or controls on the development, production and sale of fembots (refer examples here, here, and here).
One particular strategy being pursuing is to create an association between fembots and pedophilia. They are doing so by, for example, creating the impression that a surge in the sale of child-like sex robots is underway:
[Allow me to digress for a moment … Artificial intelligence (AI) may or may not not pose a significant danger to humankind (example). It’s just that, within that broader context, the relative significance of some nexus between humanoids and how men treat women amounts to little more than navel lint-picking. Ditto for manufactured debates as to whether robots should be accorded rights or protections in relation to, for example, sexual functions. Indeed such debates and attendant policy responses, whether they be genuine or simply disguised attempts to control male sexuality, could be exploited by machines with AI to move against humans. Think this is science fiction? Well, we will see soon enough.]
Back now to the gender debate … Ever heard the observation that less attractive women tend to have the best personalities? The idea is that physically unattractive people tend to work harder at developing other appealing attributes. Many women overtly use their sexuality to attract mates and subsequently extract various advantages. Their sexuality is like a strong perfume that covers all manner of odious traits like bad manners, selfishness, and dishonesty.
Now imagine a world where men had an alternative and readily available outlet to satisfy their sexual needs. One that lacked some of the attributes of human company, but had none of the negative features (e.g. the threat of false accusations, financial abuse, paternity fraud, domestic violence, etc).
To some extent, and I know it seems a bit of a stretch at this stage, all women would find themselves on more of a level playing-field with regards to physical attractiveness. Heterosexual men would be more inclined to place greater value on non-sexual attributes of women, just as in the case of homosexual guys [in their dealings with women] do now. Women who had little to offer other than sex appeal might well find themselves somewhat devalued in the dating marketplace, if not shunned entirely by many men.
Such a situation could in fact be quite liberating and a win/win for many women, given that pressure for sex would be somewhat reduced. Just as women (well, those who valued male company at least) would have a heightened incentive to be the best person they could be, so too men might be freer to engage and express themselves in a non-sexual sense.
“Ms Roper cited research from the Australian Institute of Criminology, which concluded there was no evidence these products prevented child sexual abuse. Instead, they present a risk of escalation and may actually increase the likelihood of child sexual abuse, she said.” And so that research demonstrates such evidence? (To be reviewed assuming I can find the results of the study. This is the only related study I can see at the moment.)
My fake conversation with a sex robot (16 June 2018) The left crowd of the mainstream media try to get their heads around the fembot phenomenon in yet another version of the never-ending “Where have all the good men gone?” story theme.
A while ago I came across a US state program that was designed to encourage males to have respect for women. The organisation ‘A Voice for Men’ responded with a provocative and graphic statement along the lines of “we’ll have respect for those people who are deserving of respect”. Read the comments that follow the pictures to capture the essence of the ensuing discussion.
David was one amongst the many feminists and camp followers to bite back. David’s article concluded with the statement:
“The logic here is airtight: because some women get drunk and urinate in public, women don’t deserve respect.
I guess men never get drunk and urinate in public, or ever do anything vaguely embarrassing that gets caught on camera?
Is it really asking too much to respect people as people, foibles and all?”
Well David, yes it is too much to ask of feminists apparently. Can you name even one single male “foible” that feminists are willing to accept?
Men do some gross things, and its usually no-one’s fault but our own. The difference is that we admit it instead of denying it to maintain a moral high ground above the opposite sex … or alternatively blaming our behaviour on someone else or some mythical matriarchy. Hell when some guys really go too far we even express pointed criticism of their behaviour, and urge them to lift their game. Another significant point of difference, yes?
If feminists were truly into equality then surely they would support a reciprocal program that urged girls and women to ‘Respect men’. No? What’s that I hear? Guffaws of laughter instead? Telling, isn’t it?
In fact on that point, a post that I recently contributed to an online discussion was zapped by a moderator because I concluded with the suggestion that women should respect men (in the same sentence I also said men should respect women). It wasn’t even a feminist site either. This is what things have come to … simply suggesting that women should respect men is just cause to be labelled a ‘redneck’ or similar.
I guess one gender must be more equal than the other, or something.
YouTuber promises to release sex tape (23 January 2017) Feminists can find the time to criticize men on the basis of just about anything, but criticise a woman for eroding respect for women? No way, well not unless they are conservative and/or anti-feminist.
“What happened to the modern man? I think he got left behind and died of starvation because I don’t see any around these days. I went on a date the other night, shocking right? But when the dinner came to an end and we were laughing away into the sunrise and the check came out- he slid it towards me. If you need to re-read that last sentence then please do so now.
Ahh yes, he slid the check to me and asked to split. The worst word in the English dictionary. Right next to debt and vegetarian. I mean, nobody wants to split their pants, their hair line, alcohol, or especially, a check. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some mega bitch, but guys will always make more money than girls.” (Source)
Why feminists hate debating anti-feminists (26 August 2016) Feminists feel entitled to not have their opinions challenged because only they can know their experience as a woman. Although they see no such contraint to understanding/explaining/judging men’s experiences.
White House meets with activists calling for gender equity in My Brother’s Keeper (15 July 2014) The current US administration shamelessly panders to the feminist hierarchy. They finally introduce one (1!) program aimed at helping males, and even then they had to exclude white males because of the anticipated backlash. Were feminists willing to make this one small concession? Oh no. Let’s not worry about the scores of pre-existing programs from which males are excluded. It’s pathetic, it really is. When are people going to wake up to what is going on?