It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:
As the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. David Futrelle wrote a highly edited piece about Tom Martin’s comments on his blog. For those who do not know, Tom Martin launched a lawsuit against London School of Economics citing sexism against men in their women’s studies department. His suit was dismissed, but Martin continues to speak out about misandry in academia.
However, it seems that like many feminists, Martin does not know when to dial the rhetoric back. Since he made international news, Martin has visited several feminist websites and made very egregious comments like this one. It is painfully clear that he does not like feminists, and while he is entitled to express that, the way he does it undermines his position. He went from having a valid argument to making himself, and by proxy his argument, look utterly ridiculous.
It is painful to watch someone flame out like that, whether I agree with them or not. It is worse in this situation because Martin is squandering his chance to actually make a change. Instead, if anyone who googles his name they will eventually find comments like the one above and that will not help him.
That brings us to how Futrelle actually made a valid point. Yes, he misrepresents Martin’s comments by taking several of them out of context, therein making it appear that Martin holds a position he does not. However, Futrelle does have a point that Martin suffers from footinthemouth disease. (Of course, Futrelle would know what the symptoms are since he suffers from it himself.)
I make it a point to always read the original quote in context, and with someone like Futrelle who has a history of selective quoting it is necessary. It is clear from the edited title that Futrelle wants his readers to think Martin supports child rape. He lists several clipped examples, which I will get to in a moment, before ending with:
I doubt many of Mr. Martin’s American supporters are familiar with his elaborate apologia for child rape. I would like to invite Man Boobz readers to show this post, or at least some of the more repellant quotations from it, to the proprietors of the various MRA blogs and MRA forums I have mentioned above.
I wonder if any of his supporters will be willing to renounce him publicly once they know what he has said here – and apparently in some recent public debates as well. Surely no legitimate “human rights movement” would want to be associated with anyone who spouts filth like this.
One would think that, but clearly a legitimate “human rights movement” like feminism has no problem associating with people who spout filth like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. And that is just the misandrist, rape apologist, rape denying, male-bashing nonsense from Manboobz. There is also stuff this, this, and this on other feminist blogs. Feminists should not be so quick to thrown stones unless they plan on throwing them at themselves.
Back to the topic at hand, it turns out that I made the right choice reading Martin’s comment in context (the bold portion is what Futrelle quoted):
What you don’t appear to realize, is that behind the scenes, the “sex slavery” or “trafficking” story-using authorities, governments and NGOs have changed the definition of “trafficking”. It used to mean sex-slavery, but as there is no force, they changed the definition to mean any prostitute who travels to another country to work.
In Sweden, because they couldn’t find any trafficked (against their will) prostitutes, they changed the definition to include “trafficked-like” whatever that means.
It’s all a big joke – which you don’t appear to be in on.
The latest establishment scam in the UK, is to describe child prostitutes as “vulnerable children groomed for sexual exploitation”, then talk about them being “passed around” etc, without mention of the fact that these young people agreed to be whores, and are getting paid for it.
While I do not agree with Martin’s conclusion, which I will get to in a moment, he is indeed correct that there is a difference between someone being forced to have sex for money versus someone choosing to have sex for money. Even if that person is a child, while they are being exploited, they are not being forced to do it. This was something I wrote about a few months ago.
The John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan conducted a study to find out how many youths were prostitutes in New York City. The researchers expected to find a large number of girls being pimped, but instead found that nearly half the child sex workers were boys and virtually no one they interviewed had ever been pimped. In other words, the vast majority of the children were selling themselves of their own choice.
One can argue whether they really have a choice given that most of them, particularly the boys, were initiated at a young age. This may be the only way they know of, besides selling drugs or committing some other crime, to take care of themselves. It is indeed exploitation, and the notion that it is not, which Martin argues, is moronic. However, it is not trafficking in any sense of the word. No one is making the children sell themselves. No one forces them to do this. No one threatens them, coerces them, bribes them, or defrauds them. They are indeed choosing to sell themselves, and while the choice is a terrible one, that does not make it any less a choice.
That makes Futrelle’s attempt to brand Martin child rape apologist rather stupid. Futrelle quotes a portion from Martin’s follow-up comment:
“Yeah, she offered me a job as a prostitute abroad, which would involve me receiving lots of money for taking cock, so I accepted, became a prostitute, and therefor, according to the official fem definition, this makes me a sex slave”.
Even a 10 year old knows, if someone is paying you for sex, that makes you a whore.
But what preceded those comments was a Youtube video showing how Sweden changed the definition of trafficking when it could not find enough victims to meet the original definition and this:
And here is the whole official definition of trafficking, which appears to include paying someone to be a prostitute abroad:
(a) ‘Trafficking in persons’ shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, ofdeception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
(b) The consent of the victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in the subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph(a) have been used;
(c) The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered ‘trafficking in persons’ even if this does not involve any of the means set forth; and 2
(d) Child means any person under the age of 18.
Again, Martin has a point that the general definition of trafficking involves some amount of force. Even subparagraph (b) acknowledges this by making a point that the trafficked person’s consent is irrelevant if any threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or bribe occurred. If none of those are present, it would appear that anyone who chose to work as a prostitute abroad has not been trafficked.
Martin does not endorse child rape. He specifically states that he is against it. He does, however, argue for taxing prostitutes so much that they would not want to be prostitutes anymore:
I stand by my statement, that child prostitutes know what they are doing, and therefore deserve to be called prostitutes, not victims.
A progressive European country (either Holland or one of the Scandinavian countries, I remember hearing), introduced in the late 90s, the legal principle of no arbitrary minimum age for consent, rather, the legal requirement to ascertain whether lawful sex had taken place was to establish whether the child or young person ‘understands the meaning of consent’. The radio documentary I heard on it reported that the new legal principle was actually very popular with the electorate, but that there were technical difficulties implementing it, and it was open to abuse, and defining exactly who understood the meaning of consent in each case proved difficult in practice, so reluctantly, the country’s laws reverted to an arbitrary minimum age of consent.
Now, if a ten year old is for instance sucking cock for money up front, then there is very much less question whether that whore understands the meaning of consent or not.
Should child prostitution be illegal?
All child labour should be illegal below the age of 13, and then after the age of 13, restricted to very few hours per week, so as not to interfere with school work.
Should child prostitution from the ages of 13 up be legal?
Nope. I think that prostitution is a potentially dangerous profession for which a basic qualification in health and safety be required, like an NVQ – and that kind of course would not be attainable until after the minimum of secondary school years are completed, so aged 14, 15, 16, 17 or even 18 or more depending on the country.
States with child prostitution problems should be forced to get these children back into schools to complete their education, and child prostitutes who persist should be treated as school truants, a misdemeanor, and given the carrot and stick approach to get them back on the straight and narrow or go to young offenders institutions. If they want to be prostitutes when they’re old enough, then they can go to the careers advise officer, where the pros and cons of the profession can be laid out, and an application for the training course and license can be given.
Prostitutes need to be taxed and licensed so heavily, rendering the profession a relatively poor way of making money.
Anyone who practices as a prostitute without the necessary qualification and license, can go to young offenders institute/jail – just like any other persistent illegal unlicensed trader would.
Anyone working on the sly as an escort, should be hunted down by the taxwoman, and if caught, given a huge bill for tax evasion, as well as a fine, and prison for not having a license. Unlicensed tax-evading prostitutes should be hunted down (which would be easy enough).
Anyone choosing prostitution should pay the highest taxes, and know why those taxes are so high – because of the damage prostitution does to the prostitutes and their customers and their environment and the society.
While none of that makes a lick of sense (it would be much easier to provide the men, women, boys, and girls with help and other opportunities to get them off the streets rather than license and tax them to high heaven), it still does not rise to the level of supporting or endorsing child rape. Even when Martin argues that 14 to 18-year-olds could be old enough to be sex workers, he still is not condoning or supporting child rape. He clearly states that he thinks child prostitution is bad, that it should be illegal, and that states with child prostitution problems should do something about it, and nowhere does he say that raping a child is a good thing.
Granted, the idea that a 14-year-old should be legally allowed to sell their body is ridiculous. The average teenager, even the average college student, lacks the wherewithal to really protect themselves. The John Jay report noted that many of the child sex workers were assaulted, raped, and robbed while on the job. Legalizing sex with teenagers would not prevent any of that. The only way to prevent that is to give those kids other options so they do not have to sell themselves.
But for some reason Martin follows up with this:
From the perspective of a child who has actually been raped by an adult, how must it seem, to hear the victim-feminist establishment conflate child rape with child prostitution? The raped child remembers having no choice about participating in the sexual activity, of being forced, and then is asked to consider his or her fate or level of agency as similar or the same as that of a child who marketed them self for sex to an adult, took payment, then performed the act.
I don’t think the average 10 year old genuine rape victim would buy the manboobz style analysis that all child prostitution is rape, or that anyone who dare try and make a distinction is x, y, or z.
Questions of genuine agency are complicated, but not complicated enough to pass a 10 year old genuine rape victim’s bullshitometer I posit.
I completely agree that the Manboobzers have a warped sense of rape and a disgusting attitude towards male rape survivors. However, speaking as a person who was once a 10-year-old rape victim, I do not think a 10-year-old would care one way or the other about whether a child prostitution is rape. It certainly did not matter to me when I was that age. Had I known someone who willing sold themselves for sex I likely would have asked why and whether it bothered them. My 10-year-old mind would not have been able to see past my own experiences, and even as an adult who knows children who worked on the streets I honestly do not see much of a difference. I think of it the same way that I think of the times when I initiated sex as a child: I did it because it would be worse if I let the adult do it first.
Martin’s comment does not pass my bullshitometer (and neither do the moronic responses from the Manboobzers), and here is why: it feels like crap to sell yourself. There is no way you do not feel exploited, and I know this from experience. No matter what choices I made, it felt no different than when I was a little kid. In some ways it felt worse because at least with the other stuff I could always say I did not want to do it. But by selling myself I could not claim that. I may not have “wanted” to do it, but I certainly made a conscious decision and it was a disgusting one, which is why I rarely talk about it.
That said, I am sure one can find some rape victims who will say that being a prostitute is not like actually being raped. However, I will make the same argument I make when people complain about other people comparing false accusations with raped you are not comparing the act, but the affect of the act. Just like with false accusations, the affect selling yourself has on a person is very similar to what rape does to a person. There is really no difference, and it is foolish to pretend there is.
By this point the Manboobzers have got Martin going, so he loses all common sense and behaves just like the Manboobzers and lets his digital mouth keep yapping instead of shutting up:
Whether you’re a child prostitute, an adult prostitute, or, as with manboobzers, unsure which category you fall into, the same principle still applies. If you sincerely want to stop the endless procession of paying cocks penetrating your person, then take the price list down, and stop charging money for sex.
If, at whatever age you are, you do not understand the meaning of consent, or the meaning of money, or the meaning of consent for money, but someone is still sticking their cock in you and you’re not sure why, then that is probably rape – even if you forgot to mention to said cock wielder that you’d rather they didn’t. Hell, if you’re drunk enough, you can shout “Stick it in me Trevor” and that can still mean “no” for all the new UK laws care, as long as you say you can’t remember. Phone the emergency services for a chat about it. If necessary, ask someone how to operate the phone.
Imagine you caught your underage 15 year old daughter on the game, what would you say to her?
“Okay darling, obviously you played no part whatsoever in choosing to be a prostitute yourself, so mummy’s going to help catch the nasty pimp who put you up to this, because what you need to learn is when 15 year old girls accidentally suck cocks for money, they should be compensated, with a bit of victims of crime compensation, and, not forgetting, the original £12 cock-sucking bonanza from the punter. That’s right sweety. Double bubble time. Pass me the phone. Now how does this thing work?”
Or… would you ground the whore for 6 months until she passes all her GCSEs?
Well, given that approximately 98% of manboobzers are whores themselves, I’m guessing
you’re probably going to want to blame it all on MRAs.
That makes Martin look like a jackass (although he is in good company on Manboobz). While Martin may have a point that it is silly to pretend that children are incapable of consenting to selling themselves for money, there are better ways to make that argument. Mocking child prostitutes is not one of them.
This is very simple: some kids do choose to sell their bodies for sex. It is silly to think they are always forced into doing so, just as it is silly to think they have no idea what they are doing. Whether they have the mental capacity to understand the ramifications of their choices is debatable. I doubt they truly understand what they are getting themselves into, but that does not change that they are making a choice, and that choice is not the same as some person forcing themselves on a child.
See? Same argument, no profanity, no nonsense, and no cheap insults.
It seems that Martin’s problem is one that many feminists like those on Manboobz suffer from: they cannot make their points without making absolute fools out of themselves.
Take Martin’s logical argument that there is a difference between a pedophile raping a child and one paying a child prostitute. It is a sound argument. The former involves force, threats, or coercion, while the latter involves a monetary exchange. While one can argue that they are equally morally repugnant — and they are — they are not the same act. But instead of explaining it with some amount of reason, Martin chose to phrase it like so:
“Child rape apologist!” They said it 50 times, so it must be true!
No, I said pedophiles should be taken out of circulation and treated compassionately because they probably suffer from a pathology.
Incidentally, the same position that this wikipedia overview of pedophillia says US society already takes:
But pedophiles who pay children for sex are not really rapists, because the child consents, then performs the act, indicating they understand the nature of the contract. The elder is still a pedophiles, but the child prostitute is still a prostitute.
If the child is enslaved – it’s rape, or too young or stupid to know what he or she’s doing – rape. But poor, and in need of food? Not rape. A choice. Unwilling to do other hard labour paying 9 times less than the prostitution route? Not rape. A choice.
I think there are a too few prostitute feminists on this blog who will do anything to perpetuate the tax-free lifestyle prostitutes are currently legally entitled to in most places.
Prostitution tax avoidance and accountability avoidance opportunities need to be shut down.
If a grown woman would make the argument she’s a prostitute due to being victim of circumstance, then a child will be encouraged to make the same argument. Set a better example.
Whatever your age, follow the golden rule, of never taking money for sex, then prostitution will be eradicated. Only the prostitute can stop charging for sex.
And of course, that means rejecting courtship gifts, engagement gifts, marriage gifts, divorce gifts, and government largess also.
I don’t think many of you are ready to renounce prostitution in all its forms.
It’s such a simple course of action – but manboobzers will conspire to make it seem ridiculous, unquantifiable, un-knowable and so on.
I know a whore when I see one.
Again, Martin makes himself look like an utter jackass. Worse, he provides fodder for feminists who will now use Martin’s face-palming comments as “proof” that anyone who supports men’s issues or men’s rights endorses child rape, even though Martin explicitly states he does not support child rape.
I do not know what Martin’s problem is, but he needs to learn when to keep his mouth shut or learn how to better present his argument, because this kind of stupidity does no one any good, as Martin again demonstrated:
And incidentally, men who pay money to have sex with child prostitutes should not be criminalized – but taken out of circulation and treated compassionately for their condition. I’ve heard that most criminal activity peaks with testosterone levels, in the late teens, but paedophillia is the only crime that increases in frequency as these men get older, indicating a growing pathology for them rather than just a typical immature criminal act.
A lot of crime may be down to low serotonin levels and problems with unresponsive prefrontal cortexes etc, so I suppose there’s a medical excuse for most things. Deciding to be a hooker may be one of those choices down to mental medical conditions too. If licensed hookers pay for a massive license fee and heavy taxes, then some of that money can be ring-fenced to research how best to get women (and girls) to renounce prostitution in all its forms, because let’s face it, a lot of housewhores and princess wannabes could do with a little economic activity-inducing work ethic therapy themselves.
Comments like that make it look like whenever Martin starts to make sense he does not know what to do, and so deliberates screws it up.
This is just plain embarrassing to watch, not only because it is sad to see someone sink to the Manboobzers level of stupidity, but also because Martin had the chance to present valid arguments, yet showed that there is little reason to take him seriously. No, he is not the child rape apologist that Futrelle tried to make him out to be. However, Martin does seem to be trying to win the race for stupidity for some inexplicable reason, and in that regard, Futrelle has a point, although it is not the point he wanted to make.