Thursday, 21 February 2013

Low-Grade Prostitution: Two of Three Things The Manosphere Doesn't Get

At the end of the first of these posts, I referred to "low-grade prostitution". Somewhere in Mayhew's London's Underworld he refers to shopgirls and others who allow sailors and office boys to buy them meals and theatre tickets as part-time prostitutes. I thought that was a bit harsh for about five minutes, and then I got the point. The girls wouldn't have sex for free, the boys had to pay first. That made them prostitutes, just with a day job as well.

Let's get this completely clear: a girl who makes it a necessary condition for having sex with a man, that he pay for or do something first, is a hooker. The fact she doesn't go off and service another two guys on the same evening, or charge for the night as much as a full-timer, just means she's a part-timer. I do not care how she disguises it, especially if it's with such self-serving stuff as "the man always pays". This means dinner, theatre, weekends away, and of course any sort of gift. It also means "rewarding" the guy when he puts up the shelves / fixes the tap / visits her mother / whatever. And it's implied if she withdraws sex because she pissed off that he (enter random and nonsensical reason here), because that implies she was in part fucking him for being a "good boy". A woman who makes love and then complains that she didn't get what she expected from the man, by way of gifts, attention, promises or whatever, is admitting that she fucks not for pleasure but for trade. A man who complains that he got laid but she wouldn't husband him up is not much different. If you want a crime of prostitution, then decent sex has to be free. It takes distinctions of a subtlety worthy of the best theologians to get out of that one. None of them really carry the weight. 

Sex is what it is, not some sacrament, rite or obligation-creating gift. That's all just crap made up three thousand years ago, when all marriages were arranged, to persuade some guy and girl who had never met before and are now married, that they need to get busy anyway. To use sex for rewarding, placating, managing or encouraging, or to withdraw it to punish, manage or disapprove, is just downright disrespectful and perverted. To enter into a marriage or live-in relationship when you're not that keen on sex with your partner is close to fraudulent. To withdraw from sex with your partner, unless they have turned hideous, is simply abusive. 

Oh, and if sex really wasn't important, nobody would bother saying "sex isn't the most important thing in a relationship". They don't say that about cooking and ironing, but they do say it about sex. Go figure.

One reason the Manosphere doesn't take my attitude is exactly that they want the girl to have sex with them because they are Manly Providers and Good Fathers, and that's what Womanly Supporters and Real Mothers do: they fuck their Manly Providers. Um, I hate to break this to you, but that's reward fucking. That makes her a hooker and you a John. Get this really clear: she fucks you because of and despite what you do. Sure, turn into a useless whale, and you should be sleeping in the garage, but as long as you stay in the shape which if you were a woman, you'd fuck yourself, and she's in that shape as well, then you fuck each other because you like doing it, and for no other reason. The minute it gets tied to anything else, it's business, and one or other of you is a whore.

I will take on trust that there are people who are still fun-fucking each other after ten years, and that it is possible. I'm a recovering alcoholic, addict, ACoA with a short attention span and a really low boredom threshold, so I can't even imagine being satisfied with the same partner after, oh, six months? Which does not change the fact that honest sex is recreational. In marriage or in the single world.

No comments:

Post a Comment