Poor, poor, johns

I swear. Most of the “sex worker” activists I have met constantly talk about how we shouldn’t “demonize” the johns, because they’re usually married/partnered*, etc, and they are simply seeking understanding for a sexual act that their steady partner cannot or will not provide.  Men aren’t just looking to “bust a nut,” they’re seeking the love and understanding every human wants.  Or that some people are just “incapable” of relationships with the opposite sex.  And they’re normal men just like your coworkers and friends. So they need an outlet.

If I don’t have, or can’t have a relationship, I don’t feel like I should have the right to exchange money for sex. I don’t. Especially since there would be no way for me to know if they had “chosen” sex work, or had only chosen it from a range of other shitty options (minimum wage jobs, etc, etc). Essentially, no one has the right to buy sex or sexual acts-we know that a great amount of abuse exists in this industry, and anyone who risks the chance of raping someone so that they can “get some” is sick.  No one has the right to sex, period.

However pitiful some women are, however lonely they feel, I don’t see them thinking they have a right to sex.  Women want love and understanding just as everyone does, but we never get it.  Yet somehow, we don’t use prostitutes.  Women, FOR SOME REASON, generally don’t purchase sex; women represent sex, thus they are usually sellers.   Why are the roles in prostitution so gendered?   Who has the resources and the money?  Men.  Who has the prestige?  Men.  Who has the power?  Men.  Who represents sex?  Women.   Most men believe they are entitled to sex, and as a result they make up most rapists and most johns.  Women are not raised to think of themselves as “entitled” to sex- sex is something women give and men take.

Wanting love and understanding does not make johns understandable or sympathetic, unless you’re the type who “understands” MRAs.  Yeah, they’re human, but so are rapists.   Wanting love and understanding means get a goddamn therapist, or failing that, talk to people.  Hell, you could even just talk to the prostitute, and not fuck her.  It does not mean you should fuck women.  The fact that people say johns are just seeking understanding and love is disgusting.  If they were, they wouldn’t have the sex, they wouldn’t need it, they wouldn’t demand it, and they wouldn’t be violent, they wouldn’t ask for unprotected sex.

These men aren’t seeking understanding: they are seeking the image of it.  A woman, nurturing like a mother, but also a whore, who will nurture the man through whatever sick fetish he’s developed.  A yes-woman, who will agree that his wife is a bitch, frigid, stupid, whatever.  Consequently, the image for a “sex worker” is that of a college-educated middle class white woman (preferably aryan) who drops every career opportunity and hobby to fuck men for money.  Her image is no different from that of “good mom,” who leaves her potential career behind “by choice,” because she wuves her kids so much and wishes them to have the best.

But, here are a few large differences:  children have a need for someone to care for them, men, on the other hand, and specifically johns, have jobs and the full development necessary to take care of themselves.  No one needs to take care of grown men. However much they seem or act as helpless as babies, they aren’t.  It’s an act.

This whole outlet thing is the same bullshit that says men’s sex drives are natural and unstoppable;  therefore they have a right to an outlet.  God forbid we raise men to NOT feel entitled to sex, so that they will not rape or purchase “sex.”

No one has ever died from lack of sex.   Ever.

So can it about men’s sexual and emotional “needs.”  Women’s right to not be raped and used sexually is more important than some douchebag’s orgasm.

*So are most child molesters, rapists and serial killers.  I doubt this is a coincidence.

Advertisements

6 responses to “Poor, poor, johns

  1. And they’re normal men just like your coworkers and friends.

    THIS is what is intended to manipulate women into believing that all of this is OK. because most women arent radical, and therefore believe that their male coworkers and friends are OK. but they arent. men are not OK. men are NOT OK AT ALL, not as we currently know them, where they are all groomed FROM BIRTH to view PIV as “sex” and to perpetrate it on as many women as possible. where all men are groomed to RAPE. FROM BIRTH. all of them. even the ones you know. even the ones you like. even the ones you depend on. its a fucking horrifying realization to come to, but its true: that “male” as a sexual class is literally defined by male-bodies persons ability to cause female-specific harm to women with their dicks, and its been this way for millenia, and it very well may NEVER change.

    these things are all so similar, that it literally comes down to “all of this is OK, or none of it is.” “normal men” are so similar to rapists as to be indistinguishable from them, especially if they are having PIV, and putting women at risk for unwanted pregnancy. het partnerships and prostitution are nearly identical too, especially where the female partner is financially dependant on the man. most women choose to see it one way, as “all of this is OK.” third-wave feminism and sex-pozzie rhetoric has embraced this as their fucking motto in fact. and radical feminists know better. none of this ok. not by a long shot.

    • THIS is what is intended to manipulate women into believing that all of this is OK. because most women arent radical, and therefore believe that their male coworkers and friends are OK.

      I didn’t think about this part. I honestly just took it as like the “bad kids” they taught us about in DARE-“everyone’s doing it!” But shit, it really is just a manipulative douche argument.

  2. Wanting love and understanding means get a goddamn therapist, or failing that, talk to people. Hell, you could even just talk to the prostitute, and not fuck her.
    Yeah, the ‘love and understanding’ argument really does not make much sense. Love does not equal sex. Understanding certainly does not mean sex.

    No one needs to take care of grown men. However much they seem or act as helpless as babies, they aren’t. It’s an act.
    Yes indeed. They seem to manage in the career department without their mommys.

    Here’s a big clue for the johns – if women don’t want to have sex with you, it is probably because you are an asshole, or you have severe personal hygiene issues. Both of which can be cured by changing yourselves.

    The ‘men must have access to prostitutes or they will rape’ – jeez, and radfems keep getting accused of calling men rapists, and it actually forms part of the pro-pornstitution arguments. Do they even listen to themselves?

    Most dudes come with two hands. Use ’em.
    Stop being entitled that you must stick your dicks into women.

  3. Ooooh just to expand on what Fab said, how often have women been told not to mistake sex for love? Yet there they go, saying men can do it. Go figure!!

    I also agree with FCM on all her points too. Yes, we should tell women not to confuse sex with love, out of concern for HER, not the dood’s “freedom.”

  4. It seems as if a certain subset of het women (young het women especially) aren’t interested in establishing nuance. In their world view, either EVERY man is okay or EVERY man is terrible.

    And they can’t bear the thought of every man being less than perfect, so they decide that every man is a noble creature who is deserving of worship, no matter how often some particular man treats women as his own personal fuckhole. And since they think every man is a noble creature, then of course there must be “a good reason” which explains why a class of women should be set aside for the express purpose of providing whatever these noble men desire.

    But if these het women had some nuance, they’d be open to even the possiblity that some men are less than perfect. I think it’s too much for us to expect them to acknowlege the existence of sexism, though, and the reason for lowering our own expectations is simple: IF someone were capable of recognizing the existence of sexism THEN they would also quickly notice the OBVIOUS genderized power disparity inherent within prostitution. And so, think about how WE refer to this subset of het women. Even we refer to them as “feminists”, but putting scarequotes around that term isn’t clear enough — they’re actually genuine misogynists who do not recognize the existence of sexism.

  5. Btw. It was not me who first coined the phrase “a class of women should be set aside for the express purpose of providing…” but Susan Brownmiller.

    Love that phrase! It really makes the dynamic clear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s