Category Archives: whiny white dudes

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.

Women shouldn’t have boundaries, Agency is Sacred (unless you’re a prude), and other things I learned from men

Reading the Hugo’s post and the comments on the Enemies of Eros (or whatever the pretentious title was)  made me realize just how sick the men we’re dealing with are.

For context, I provided on that thread a pretty detailed summary of my sex life.  I wanted to demonstrate that it is possible to have heterosexual sex that doesn’t end or even center around intercourse, mostly for the benefit of straight women who feel like they just have to accept it as “part of” sex, even though for most “foreplay” is the most enjoyable part.  Secondly, I wanted to see how they’d respond to the lived experience of someone (me) who belongs to a group demonized as anti-sex and anti-male.  Would they ignore it, call me a liar, or realize that radical feminism has never been against sex and that its portrayal as such is a simply a lie used to dismiss it?  As most could guess, the latter never happened.

The men on that Hugo thread completely ignored my hobbies and anecdotes about my sex life.  My sexuality clearly was still unhealthy, because I’m experiencing “anxiety” about intercourse and don’t want to have it.  Men never take the female sexuality seriously, unless it’s pleasing to them (see their rationalizations on burlesque/”sex work”).  To men, female sexuality requires fucking, because we’re voids just waiting to be filled.  If you don’t want to be fucked, you must be a lesbian or a prude.

But, I think that the complaint is not just that we’re against intercourse, judging by their comments and portrayal of me.  It’s that we’re setting a boundary-a sexual boundary, at that- that cannot be crossed.  We’re saying no, and for that they call us mentally ill.   Men have pathologized “frigid” women over the years, as well as demonized those who have sex on their own terms, via masturbation or lesbianism.

No doesn’t mean no, of course-it means we’re immature, we have “anxiety” about intercourse that we shouldn’t have.  And instead of dealing with it, by taking hormone-altering substances for the rest of our lives, we’re simply saying no.  This is unacceptable.

One person (who also called me an idiot yet was not banned-nice “no attacking people” policy, liverlips) suggested that I and other women who are against intercourse are in need of sex ed, where we would learn how to “negotiate” with our partner and have “healthy sex.”  Firstly, it’s mansplaining to the nth degree to suggest that a woman needs sex ed when she clearly knows what she wants and uses the terminology related to sex better than most.  (Most importantly, that heterosexual sex != intercourse.)   It also suggests that refusing intercourse is simply a product of ignorance-that is, if you knew how to “have sex,” you’d want intercourse.   When in fact, the information taught in heteronormative sex ed- about contraceptives, STD risk, and damage control (aka the morning after pill and abortions) are precisely the reasons some radical feminists want to forego intercourse.

We’re supposed to have “negotiation” in our sex lives, as if our bodies were some kind of thing we can trade and agree to use.  I doubt it’s a coincidence the first things that come to mind when I think of “negotiation” are car sales and hostage negotiation.  Women are not allowed to enter sex with a clear boundary, as I was doing-to do so means you’re messed up or immature.

From this, negotiation seems to not mean, “talk about what you like and don’t like, and then do the only the former.”  The only other thing it could mean, as far as I can gather, is being willing to change your mind-that is, be willing to let him “test” your boundaries,* or eventually give your “consent.”  This is hardly surprising when you consider how far men will stretch the concept of “consent”: there have been studies (too lazy to find them now) that show even convicted rapists think the “sex” they had with their victim was consensual.

While these “feminists” will argue till they’re blue in the face that you can chose to be fucked using your “agency,” you can’t chose to not be fucked using your agency.    If you chose to not be fucked, you’re brainwashed by radical feminist philosophy or conservatism.

This dynamic is especially interesting considering that they argue the culture and upbringing in a world drenched in misogyny and rape has no influence on their choices, or the choices of most people.  Obviously, this would suggest that radical feminists somehow have far more influence than the dominant culture and media, since we are allegedly able to influence choices while society does not.  Which is a laughable idea, since even the majority of feminists shun us.

Lastly, I’d like to say that, as lame and nerdy as it might sound, fanfiction is a major part of my sexuality.  And I have a feeling the reason it’s ignored, stigmatized and mocked is because the primary authors and readers are women.

Really, what’s more sexually messed up: requiring female risk for sex, or foregoing activities that require female risk?

*This is a common thing in bondage, often outright called “pushing one’s boundaries,” more often/specifically pain tolerance, and is often considered an essential part of “good” BDSM.  And this is a very large part of D/s relationships, from my understanding, especially when “training” (ew) is involved.

PS: Sorry this first post after a long break kinda sucks.

Calling Out Feminist Men

I worry a bit that posting this makes me as creepy as Hugo, who seems to have an obsession with FCM’s posts while not actually understanding or replying to them at all.  (Have you noticed they never quote FCM radical feminists in general?  Makes it much easier to misrepresent what they say.)  But I don’t think it does, because there are a few major differences.  Firstly, the major reason this needs to be pointed out is to say with big neon letters that even “feminist” men can be creepy rapist motherfuckers. It also is a sort of case study on what FCM said in On Crediblity.  And as to why I’m motivated to this, Hugo is essentially going back on his word, where he invited to reopen comments on his posts describing the affairs, since I might have a “new take.”  Only if he believed my analysis of his past to be irrelevant to the topic does my ban really make sense, since calling his “affairs” outright rape is obviously a “new take” on them.  But since he didn’t mention me being off topic, I can only guess I analyzed his past a little more than he would have liked.

Alternatively, I was banned because I was “arrogant and entitled,” and “threw the word rape around” for nearly any sexual act, by calling Hugo a rapist for fucking his students.  It’s interesting to me they say these things, because the rationalizations of these commenters are the same ones I have seen from rapists and rape apologists I’ve encountered (or been raped by).  The general lack of seriousness with which they treated my judgment of his actions also says quite a bit about “feminist” men’s definitions of “consent” and how they react to women accusing men of misogyny, in this case manifesting as rape and an abuse of power.

One of the most frightening responses was from someone who said I had a “right to my opinion” that he had raped his students, but that I shouldn’t apply labels based on it.  Which I assume translates to: You can think he raped those women, but don’t call him a rapist because that’s mean and irrelevant.  Thanks! But more so than this guy’s concern for Hugo’s fee-fees, the analogies that followed this are incredibly frightening, considering the subject matter.

Ms Citrus – No one that I’m aware of is saying “that liberal men don’t consider a professor sleeping with student rape, or even predatory”.

If I had several accidents caused by drunken driving where I injured or killed others – I would clearly be a “murderer” or similar to some. To hear that years later would be different from shortly after the last “accident”. (None of this happened.)

There is plenty – if you want to criticize Hugo – related to his past and certainly material he writes of now. There is no need to make things related to Hugo or others as a: “you’re with me or against me” mindset as you are (unfortunately) doing. Thanks!

The key words in his analogy are “accidents.”  This commenter is, yes, comparing accidents that happen while driving drunk to a teacher fucking his students.  As though you can accidentally fuck someone.  The fact of the matter is these “affairs” of his takes intent.  He could have, I am sure, found willing sexual partners in his own age range.  But he didn’t.  He could have even dated people half his age who weren’t his students, or simply waiting until whoever he was interested in graduated.  But he didn’t.

He deliberately chose to fuck his students-whether that’s because he knew they weren’t in any position to say no, or simply because he had some sort of fetish for student/teacher relationships isn’t clear.  What is clear, however, is that his affairs with students were no “accident” and not due to any spiritual or emotional connection to the women involved, since he fucked multiple students in the same time period.  Despite what “feminist” men like Hugo, my ex, and the commentators who support him might imply, you cannot accidentally fuck someone, nor can you accidentally rape them.   Rape is never a “mistake” on the part of the rapist, to use the same term of another commenter.  Nor is fucking students a mistake that everyone could make.  It occurs when a man wants to fuck a woman, regardless of what she wants.

I don’t think it any different than how people have labeled Andrea Dworkin and may others. Dworkin was obviously Much More Profound an influence on most of us than Hugo is and didn’t have a Past of which she was Ashamed due to things she’d done – as Hugo does, but she wasn’t “perfect” in her visions. Criticizing specifics of her ideas is fine, but labeling her as oft times is done shows More of the limitations of the Labeler than anything about her.

Because labeling someone as a bitch or a “misandrist,” based on their theory, is just as bad as calling someone a rapist based on their actual history of  fucking their students.  Most of the time I’m convinced this is deliberate stupidity, because I don’t see how else anyone could say things like this and not realize how moronic they sound.

I was able to recover one of the comments I believe I was banned for, which *just so happened* to contest his account of those “affairs,” although I added some points and stuff so it fits into the post better:

Of course I’m going to be hostile-Hugo is a fucking rapist as far as I’m concerned, and “feminists” are listening to him.  You cant sleep with someone you have that kind of power over “consensually,” and even if HE says it was consensual, that doesn’t mean it was.  We’re hearing the perpetrator’s perspective, and the sad thing is people are taking it seriously.  I’m not going to take the word of a man who fucks women half his age while in an authority position over them on whether or not they were willing.

He has every reason to lie on whether or not they “consented;” and I’m willing to bet he is.  Since he never says who initiated these relationships, yet lists every other excuse for them imaginable (she wanted it, she was older than me, blahdeblah), I’m lead to conclude that HE initiated some of these relationships, which qualifies as sexual harassment and makes any prospect of “consent” on their part far more dubious, even if you think it’s possible for them to consent.  And even if you don’t think he raped them, he’s still a fucking creep who sexually harassed (past tense?) his students.  And he now teaches classes made up of predominantly women-women in the same age group and social position as others that he habitually fucked.   It’s akin to putting a “transformed” pedophile in charge of an elementary school class so he can redeem himself.  Like hell anyone would support that.

His “past,” as he euphemistically calls it, isn’t exactly the only shady thing either.  He is currently on his fourth wife-which to anyone with a lick of sense suggests that something about the way he treats and interacts with women is off.  It’s just plain pathetic that people are taking what he says about women and other feminists to be true.

My nigel actually pointed out when I was discussing this with him, that I was “warned” in a way by Hugo, that I needed to shut up about his past: he’s made amends publicly, and “grieve[s] the harm [he] did” with” patient and persistence and the complete absence of shame.”  Which roughly translates to: I apologized, you bitch, what else do you want?

Heard the same before from my rapist and his supporters.  When I confronted them and they had the actual sense to realize they were wrong and apologize, if I didn’t immediately drop the issue, I was reminded it was years ago, that I needed to just let it go, and that they apologized.  When I pointed out that them wanting me to just shut up about it meant their apology is just a way to dismiss their crimes, they blocked me or just walked off, depending on if I confronted them on chat or IRL.   So no wonder Hugo banned me!  He made amends and grieves the harm he did, and I was still not letting it go.  What could he do but ban me, right?  It causes him so much pain to be reminded of the fact that he raped his students, and he’s made amends so I should just stop talking about it.  And men should never have to deal with pain or guilt, even if it comes as a direct consequence of their actions.  The fact is, if he lacked shame about his crimes, he would let me post my interpretations of his “affairs” and “acting out years,” as he euphemistically calls them.

This whole episode, their attitude towards going without PIV, and the manipulative mansplaining I feel the commenters did, left me doubting myself.  So I did what I usually do when I feel insecure, and started picking arguments apart and analyzing things.  Eventually I was left with a  pretty big piece of writing, and I figure I might as well make it a post since most of it was already written.

(I have to say though, the comment about me having to be a creationist because I think the idea that the desire for intercourse is socially constructed was hilariously sad, at least.)