The history of persecution is a history of endeavors to cheat nature, to make water run up hill, to twist a rope of sand. – Ralph Waldo Emerson
This seems to be the month for twosies, ‘cause our first selection today is an update to the same column as our last item yesterday:
Welcome To Our World (January 20th)
The Wall Street Journal isn’t exactly known for publishing neofeminist rants, but the April 23rd issue carried this rather bizarre manifesto which demands that fraternities be banned in order to “protect” helpless, fawn-like coeds:
The Greek system is dedicated to quelling young men’s anxiety about submitting themselves to four years of sissy-pants book learning by providing them with a variety of he-man activities: drinking, drugging, ESPN watching and the sexual mistreatment of women. A 2007 National Institute of Justice study found that about one in five women are victims of sexual assault in college; almost all of those incidents go unreported. It also noted that fraternity men—who tend to drink more heavily and frequently than nonmembers—are more likely to perpetrate sexual assault than nonfraternity men, according to previous studies. Over a quarter of sexual-assault victims who were incapacitated reported that the assailant was a fraternity member. It is against this boorish cartel that 16 Yale students and recent alumni asserted themselves in a Title IX complaint brought against the institution last month—a complaint that could cost the university $500 million in federal funds. The claim concerns both the ways that sexual assaults are handled by the university and also the effect that various fraternity “pranks” have had on its female students…If you want to improve women’s lives on campus, if you want to give them a fair shot at living and learning as freely as men, the first thing you could do is close down the fraternities. The Yale complaint may finally do what no amount of female outrage and violation has accomplished. It just might shut them down for good.
As is typical of such neofeminist punditry, the author indulges in the sort of slurs that, if made by a male against women, would rightfully be called “misogynistic”. And unsurprisingly, she demands blatantly unfair treatment in the name of “fairness”. Sex workers are, unfortunately, used to these tactics; the questionable “studies” making exaggerated claims, the steamrolling of individual rights in order to protect adult women from their own sexual choices or to keep them from getting their feelings hurt, etc. Interestingly, Jezebel writer Margaret Hartmann recognized this garbage for what it is, and wrote an article saying so; perhaps she’ll write an anti-prohibitionist column one day.
March Miscellanea – Backlash (March 22nd)
At the end of this sub-column I wrote, “I’m sure the police were only beating women up for their own good, to save them from those evil traffickers. Or are whores still “dangerous criminals” in South Africa as we are in Florida? It’s hard to keep track these days.” Well, apparently the South African police have made up their minds: we’re dangerous criminals. Here’s the article from the April 30th Johannesburg Times:
Investigating officers this week revealed that their inquiries could uncover the identities of more wealthy clients killed in grubby hotels and guest lodges over the past six months…The infamous strip where the bodies were found…is characterised by overcrowded and dilapidated apartment blocks and rundown guest lodges and hotels…police dockets showed that all of the victims – believed to have been poisoned by [a] syndicate [of prostitutes] – were married and either owned their own businesses or headed up relatively large firms operating in the province…The bodies of five of the victims, who had already been buried after it was presumed that they had died of natural causes, [will] be exhumed; the police [will] conduct DNA and toxicology tests and other forensic procedures on the victims; and evidence in the police’s possession has led them to believe that all six men were carrying large sums of cash at the time they were allegedly poisoned…
Apparently, the South African police believe that it’s much more convenient to blame these murder-robberies on a gang of hookers than on regular gangsters (perhaps using fake prostitutes as bait); after all, chasing after real criminals rather than unarmed women could be dangerous.
They Just Don’t Get It (April 12th)
The Keystone Kops of suburban Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania never seem to get tired of bullying whores. Indeed, it seems that lies and trickery aren’t enough for them any longer, so they’ve graduated to employing the same Gestapo tactics which have become so common in serving drug warrants: namely, smashing people’s doors in without warning in the middle of the night and pointing loaded weapons at terrified children. Here’s the April 28th story from WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh:
Police from Moon Township were surprised by what they found — a woman and her kids — when they used a search warrant in connection with a prostitution case that involves a retired Pittsburgh police detective…police were looking for evidence in the case against Talib Kevin Ghafoor when they went to an address on Collins Avenue…early Thursday morning. “Right now, she’s got her front door and back door smashed in,” said Harvey Moore, the father of a woman who lives in that home. Moore told Channel 4 Action News that the woman and her children — ages 15, 5 and 4 — were asleep when a team that included SWAT members and state troopers approached the building and entered through the front and rear doors.
“The Pennsylvania State Police surrounded the house, and before they could knock and announce their identity, a person up on the third floor was looking out the window, and they felt their positions were compromised, so they conducted a forced entry into the house,” Moon Township Police Chief Leo McCarthy said. The woman’s father said the family has been living there since February and was confused and startled when police arrived. “She claims that, about a month ago, she switched homes with Mr. Ghafoor,” McCarthy told Channel 4 Action News. “In other words, I’ll live in your house, you live in my house.” McCarthy said Allegheny County records led police to the home, which he said is still registered to Ghafoor and has not been sold to the woman. He said Ghafoor still had some of his belongings inside, which were seized…
You haven’t heard the best part yet; Ghafoor was arrested over a month ago and is scheduled for a hearing this week, so they could easily have served him with a warrant at that time at no taxpayer cost and with no danger to bystanders. Of course, that wouldn’t have allowed them to play sadistic cops-and-robbers games with automatic weapons. Still, the question remains…who did these buffoons expect to find in the house that led them to believe they would need a SWAT team? An elite team of armed assault strumpets, perhaps? I wonder if Pittsburgh area cops have been communicating with those from Johannesburg?
Real Men Support Sex Worker Rights (April 22nd)
“Deep Geek” produces a semi-regular podcast called “Talk Geek To Me” in which he often advocates for unpopular causes (including sex worker rights) and sometimes even reads my column aloud. This week, his podcast consists of a 25.5 minute editorial touching on such subjects as the assassination of Osama bin Laden, the two-party system, socialism and sex worker rights. He asked me to call attention to it and I’m happy to do so.
Whores In the News – Escorts.com Raided by FBI (October 29th)
Since the FBI raid in October the fortunes of Escorts.com have steadily declined; many clients and escorts abandoned their accounts immediately and many others continued to use them, but much more warily. Before the end of last year girls started complaining about a plethora of fake reviews (obviously posted by pigs trying to establish themselves as “hobbyists”), then a couple of months after that the site deleted reviews altogether. Finally, I just heard at about 9 AM today that the site will be closing as of May 31st. My theory is that the management was forced to cooperate with the disease infesting it, but found legal loopholes so as to prevent their being used to trick their customers. First they shut down ALL reviews in order to stop fake ones, then closed entirely to prevent the placing of entrapment ads (such as you’ll see mentioned in my May 10th column). One final attempt at trickery: A notice in red on the notice page states, “You must provide us with your full name and mailing address if you want a refund check.” Please, ladies, don’t be stupid; if you provide that information your check will come with a free visit from the local constabulary, either immediately or after they use you as a Judas goat for the next few months.
When neo-feminists go off on a rant like the one you quote, I always want to ask them;
“If young women are too helpless and clueless to protect themselves from Frat Boys (not, in my experience the sharpest knives in the drawer OR the smoothest pans in the pantry), why do we allow them to vote, enter into contracts, or hold property?”
Precisely. It’s also my argument against the Swedish Model. You can’t have it both ways; either women are competent adults, or we aren’t.
So 25% of sexual assaults were by frat members. That means 75% of assaults were by non-frat members. Maybe we should be encouraging young men to join frats.
It’s also very distressing that they’re moving the no-knock raids into even more non-violent offences. I wonder how long it’ll be before your door is kicked down for an unpaid parking ticket?
That’s what the author wants you to think, but read it more carefully. What she actually says is “Over a quarter of sexual-assault victims who were incapacitated reported that the assailant was a fraternity member.” In plain English, what that means is that a quarter of coeds who have sex while drunk and later regret it report that the also-drunk guy they had sex with was a frat boy. Does this surprise anyone who actually attended university someplace other than Toyland?
It’s yet another example of the neofeminist position that men are superior to women; they believe that while women are incompetent to make decisions while drunk, the intellectually and morally superior male can easily make valid and legally-binding decisions in the same state. 🙁
Good point about the guy also being drunk. After all, if having sex with a drunk person is rape, then didn’t she rape him as surely as he raped her?
Shades of adolescence! And here I thought it was only teenagers who could be charged with “raping each other.”
Here you go
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full
Compounding the problem is that the current crop of college admin types are constitutionally incapable of telling a young woman; “You say you went to a Frat party, drank too much, and did something you now regret? Good. Then you’ve learned something.”
Re: The Wall St. Journal Article
No one is forcing these women to go to frat houses to party. They choose to do this because it’s the cool thing to do. Why not try and educate the women about the stats instead of banning the frats?
I don’t understand this mindset.
I spent four years in a college dorm and didn’t do drugs once. Why? Because I CHOSE not to go to the rooms are parties where people were doing them. I knew what was happening (and then some) but decided to do other things, like work for the school newspaper, hang at the library, play music with friends, and do anything but hang with the druggies. I also hated drinking so I avoided frat parties and my *best friend was president of a fraternity!!*
Why is it that the personal choices of these women are not mentioned? And how can it be “victim blaming” when victims choose to put themselves in high-risk situations?
This is exactly why Paglia was attacked for preaching common sense as described in my April 4th column. The neofeminists want women infantilized and absolved of any responsibility for our own actions. But for some reason women can’t see this; they fail to recognize that the inevitable consequence of refusing responsibility for one’s actions is a concomitant reduction of individual rights.
Your blog has been a fascinating and welcome read. Thank you!
I am one of those men who visit hookers frequently. Usually the same few over and over and slowly rotate new girls in as some fade away. I occasionally buy gifts for them. Why? Well, I like making a girl smile. Simple as that. And they like making me smile too, which they do often. Fair trade.
Society looks at me and goes “what a loser”, right? Hmm, whatever – tell that to the 1,500 employees who work for me, my bank manager, my maid, my caddie, my kids, my wife. (Yeah, I am married – and hookers have SAVED my marriage). None of these people would agree with “society’s” opinion.
I enjoy life. I love a pretty woman but don’t want to juggle the emotional complexities of illicit “civilian” relationships. Working Girls, as I call them, give me a chance to escape everything. To fall into a brief but wonderful fantasy. Each girl is different and wonderful in her own way, and annoying and odd in her own way. In other words, they are just girls – with the same dreams and pains and problems and hopes and flaws as everybody else.
But they (at least the ones I repeat with) ARE quite different from the average women – they are exceptionally beautiful,incredibly affectionate, wonderfully attentive, phenomenally sexual and sensual, feisty, rational, independent and tough.
Simple put, many working girls represent the very BEST of womankind!
Legalize the work for Christ’s sake and give them the legal protection and assistance they deserve!
Thank you, Wander! Please visit and comment often; I would love to have regular input from the client’s viewpoint (especially if you’re going to flatter us like this!) 😉
Cheers Maggie, it will be a pleasure.
I have been exceedingly “active” for a long time (Tiger Woods has nothing on me! Haha) so have pretty much seen and done everything. And no regrets at all… Just an awful lot of smiles when my mind randomly wanders to a former lady.
If you have questions you want a client’s input on feel free to ask.
First article and last note:
Neofeminists don’t see how they play to the last note by the crap they spew in the first.
Sexual puritanism.
Did anybody catch this article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/08/slutwalk-not-sexual-liberation
almost all of the commenters seem to be aware that Gail Dines is major anti-porn feminist. Wendy J Murphy is what I would call a “rape crisis” feminist.
If Dines and Murphy don’t like “Slut Walks”, they must be a good thing!
Dear Beste, I learned about the “walks” from a podcast I listen to regularly. Overall, I think they’re a wonderful thing. I saw 1 article with a picture of 1 of the women holding a sign that said “sluts say yes”. I cheered at that 1! “YES” instead of: a big list of ###*** demands, qualifications men have to meet. Like do you make enough $? Can you pay for everything on our date? Etc., etc. There have also been men at the walks chanting “we love sluts”. If those men aren’t being sarcastic, then I love their chant! From what I’ve read, not all the protesters are crime victims (which is GOOD, the less violent crime victims the better), but are also women who want to point out that if they choose to be wild sexually, they have to right to be. This gives me hope that maybe there are even more “wild women” out there. I noticed in 1 of the comments on 1 article a man was saying “if the women want to be wild sexually, they have the right to be and shouldn’t hear any ###*** about it”. YES! I’m pretty much with these protesters in that if women want to be what’s called a “slut” then why not? Someone in 1 comment said the protesters should be spending time on more important things (eyeroll). I love ASS-umptions like that! It’s highly likely at least some of the protesters spend time ON other causes. If I ever go to 1 of these walks, I’ll be 1 of these. Yes, “slut” in my experience is overall an insulting word, but insulting words don’t literally take away the value of the person. I’ve REALLY learned this as an MVS. Unfortunately, most MVS do learn this because our murdered loved 1’s are viciously talked about/written about on a regular basis. But, that’ll never take away the true value of our loved 1’s. I now see the 1’s who use “slut” as an insult to be very like the 1’s who insult peoples’ murdered loved 1’s. They’re projecting their own ###*** on others. Thanks for listening.
Dear Ms McNeill, Thanks for the wonderful blog. I’m an impoverished Mensan with a great regard for the language, and am ecstatic to find that les demoiselles McNeill, Devereux and James can all argue rationally, have a firm grasp of syntax and grammar and can even spell; your/you’re, there/they’re/their, its/it’s – none of them are the slightest problem for you three. My heart soars like an eagle.
Many thanks for publishing “Wander”‘s post in praise of whores. I find myself very much in agreement, and think he expressed it beautifully. Sure, I’ve been cheated or disappointed by whores on occasion. But usually my encounters have been good. They all respond sexually, often a girl will have a mild lady-like orgasm, they all taste lovely, smell delicious, feel and look good. And they’re there with me every minute, whether talking, listening or silently doing a fine impersonation of a woman with her left brain turned off and a lot of nice sensations in her right brain. Like “Wander” I admire their (and your) style and courage.
Marcus, reading posts like yours makes it all worthwhile. 🙂
N.B.: I suspect you may also like some of the other blogs listed under “Whorish Media” on the right. 😉