Exposure of Prostitution
This article entitled “Why Do (Some) Men Cheat?” seemed worth some comment.
In the article, three prostitutes asked customers about their experience of and reasons for using their services. The title of the article was noteworthy to begin with. Putting the “some” in brackets served to imply that it may be not some but all men who cheat. And why would the man be the one being seen to cheat when visiting a prostitute? Isn’t the prostitute also cheating a customer’s wife and family, not to mention any social obligation to respect boundaries around marriage?
The men’s answers provide insight into prostitution and contradict the “poor exploited women” picture.
Firstly, these prostitutes knew that the some of their customers were married or partnered and that when found out the men were likely to experience huge trauma and loss, risking their emotional and financial welfare and the welfare of any children who would lose the identity and security of their family unit at the very least (but more likely experience worse as their separated parents become embroiled in expensive Family Court battles and the children lose their relationship with their father largely or completely, possibly to suicide, given the moral opprobrium that will be heaped upon the father for his secret predilection). In the meantime, the prostitutes’ service distracted the men from addressing and improving dissatisfactions in their own relationships. But the prostitutes cared nothing for such risks or harms as long as they could profit financially.
Secondly, the men visit their prostitute often and their narratives suggested various degrees of addiction to the activity, one man actually using the words “addiction” and “withdrawal symptoms” (pun unintended!) and another the word “habit”. The prostitutes appeared happy to foster such addiction because they were able to profit from it. Most other addictions with potentially harmful effects tend to be discouraged, disallowed or strongly limited and controlled by governments rather than being legalized with little restriction. Is the exception for prostitution related to the fact that it is mainly women who profit?
Thirdly, the men demonstrate considerable delusion concerning the prostitutes. One saw the prostitute as experiencing pleasure in their sexual intercourse, moreso than did his recent girlfriend; another believed he had pleased the prostitute during intercourse. One believed his prostitute would never let him down, and the others expressed caring and trust towards the prostitutes, one even vowing to pay off the prostitute’s mortgage if he won a lottery and another seeing the prostitute as a really good friend. These men’s natural bonding, caring and protection instincts have become directed towards the prostitutes who gladly encourage this state of affairs through pretence at caring about, listening to and gaining pleasure (beyond copious $$$) from their customers. The reality of course is that the prostitutes would abandon these men as soon as it suited, or sell them down the river if that yielded greater profit, even more easily than married women can do to their husbands. So another risk the men face is that of emotional loss of bonds that were always predicated on pretence, and a sense of rejection and worthlessness. And, unlike helping professionals, for prostitutes there is no code of ethics, legally enforced or otherwise, holding them responsible for their customers’ emotional safety.
Fourth, the $$$ are significant. Although only mentioned once and without details, the money was “a few hundred dollars for a few hours”. Women’s sexual power means that through basic, relatively unskilled labour they can earn as much as highly experienced professional people who studied for years and worked for years more to be in that position (pun unintended!).
Fifth, notice that one of the prostitutes blames her ex who “stopped paying maintenance and she found herself struggling to raise their two children alone”. What might the real story be here? Another of the prostitutes also “found herself struggling to bring up two children on her own” after “her marriage broke down 10 years ago”, and this was the reason she became a prostitute. Well, the fact is that most fathers are keen to provide significant or equal care to their children. What happened in these cases for the fathers to become distanced from their children and their paternal roles? Further, these prostitutes appeared to work from home, presumably subjecting their children in some way to a procession of sexual customers. What do/did their children’s fathers think of that?
I am not particularly opposed to legalized prostitution, but I would prefer the trade to be better controlled to reduce risk and harm to individuals and to society. The Clark government’s legalization of prostitution involved serious denial about potential harm, promoting instead a “poor exploited women” story that was ironically shared by the religious opponents to legalization. Nobody dared to offend political correctness by appearing to criticize the prostitutes or their trade. This article, despite itself, may help to promote realism about the industry.
I’ve been invited to visit prostitutes in the past.
My response has been and still is –
Why would I want to be so stupid as to pay somebody for giving me something I was simultaneously giving to them for free? – Sex.
Doesn’t that strike you as pathetic?
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 12th September 2010 @ 3:35 pm
I spose you think publicans/bar-tenders are exploiting people when they sell their patron’s beer, and chat to them about their stressful day at work. Afterall they could make home-brew at home for a fraction of the cost.
Or are they two consenting adults having a straight-forward exchange. Joe Bloggs can get a beer from this pub or that pub, or even drink at home – no gun is to his head, and if he has become an alcoholic, or just think he can’t afford to drink so much, he just has to be self-responsible…. and of course the bar will have a “happy hour” to lure customers back…
And what about those evil supermarkets putting the milk on the other side of the store, so you have to walk past the chocolate and all the food…..
Yep, evil evil marketing and evil women… Evil people making a profit.
Comment by Dave — Tue 14th September 2010 @ 7:18 pm
A barman selling someone a drink isn’t drinking from the same glass as their customer simultaneously.
I’ve met several hookers (women and a trans/gay guy) who rightly reckon men are absolute mugs to buy sex from them as they’re getting it (sex)simultaneously from the men for nothing.
I’ve no argument with the fact that it’s two (or more)consenting adults.
I didn’t say anything about evil either.
Pathetic is the word I used.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 14th September 2010 @ 7:30 pm
Dave: I stated in my post that I was not particularly opposed to legalized prostitution. And the fact that other trades may also be described as fostering addiction, exploiting people and/or causing social harm yet also providing a social good to some in no way argues against my points about prostitution. You have used a classic form of invalid argument in which you “supposed” I was saying something that I was not, then addressed that as if you were addressing the points I did make.
But the fact is that other industries trading in addictive activities are heavily controlled by laws and regulations that realistically acknowledge the potential harm. Barmen are not allowed to serve inebriated people, people under 18 or with drinks of unknown or excessive alcohol content, and they are required to provide the drinks as they describe them and in the right measures. The legalization of prostitution gave women open slather to trade in sex with few standards beyond basics such as hygiene. The dangers to society from prostitution were not acknowledged, the prostitutes, because they were mainly women, seen as the ones deserving protection while the customers were not. In fact, there was serious consideration during the legalization process of a plan to legalize the prostitutes but to criminalize their customers, this being favoured by some feminists seeking to blame men for everything. Even the helping professions such as medical practitioners are governed by codes of ethics legally enforced by a powerful Health and Disability Commission as well as Boards within each profession with legislated responsibility to control the behaviour of its practitioners. No such controls on prostitutes. As I stated, I would prefer many more legislative controls on the practice and ethics of prostitution in an effort to reduce some of its particular kinds of potential harm, and I would prefer that potential harm to be acknowledged realistically instead of being whitewashed.
Anyway, I think I made my points clear in the original posting.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 15th September 2010 @ 12:27 am
Sex is free? That’s a new concept.
Men always pay for sex, of course the payment is not always financial, but we always pay for it in some way or another.
.
.
Let’s have a look at some of the ways men pay for sex:
.
A romantic evening that is all for her benefit, so hopefully she is in the mood and you can get some action.
Paying for the entire date, so she sees you as a potential sexual partner (women love money you realise) and you can get some.
Doing things for her, like repairing her car, so hopefully she will notice you and you can get some.
Putting up with her mindless conversation about the latest nonsense (that you don’t care about at all) in some crappy women’s magazine so hopefully you can get some.
And my personal favourite, marrying the bitch so she will hopefully open her legs and you can get some on a regular basis. This not only doesn’t work but is the worst one of all.
Of course you can do all these things and some women will take the “payment”, smile and walk away.
The only difference with a prostitute is that at least they are not making any pretence about what the payment is for. And of course there are no nasty surprises 9 months later, such as a $70,000 child support bill, spread over 19 years.
Sex for us guys is NEVER free.
Comment by Phoenix — Thu 16th September 2010 @ 4:15 pm
Yes Pheonix,
many men DO pay for sex one way and another.
My point is simply that it’s dumb servile behavior which an increasing number of men are dumping as it disempowers themselves and other men.
Comment by Skeptik — Thu 16th September 2010 @ 8:06 pm
Well, that depends. A main point of my post was that we cannot trust prostitution because of the lax boundaries placed around it when legalized by the Clark government. Because of the lack of realistic recognition of social harm caused through prostitution, and the corresponding lack of legal measures to reduce such harm, “pretence” and “nasty surprises” are exactly what customers are commonly subjected to. It seemed clear that Helen Clark’s aim was to legitimize the existing fraud and immorality that was rife in prostitution, and to allow prostitution to develop into another powerful, unbridled method mainly for women to exploit men financially regarless of morality, ethics or social harm.
Pretence can range from marketing tricks (such as a prostitute pretending to be a potential partner then informing the man, who perhaps is drunk, of the price when he is aroused and anticipating sex), to false description of the goods (such as occurs with drag queens), to ongoing deceit concerning the prostitute’s affection towards the customer, to misrepresentation of the cost (telling the customer afterwards that the cost is higher due to this or that reason), to demanding money before the service then providing a substandard service (e.g. the prostitute is so out of it on drugs that she cannot participate effectively), to false promises of the service offered (then when something different is actually provided demanding payment anyway backed up by violent pimps.) Yes, general trading laws theoretically cover some of these scams but customers are unlikely to avail themselves of those laws due to their resulting exposure. Other industries in which unscrupulous behaviour is easy tend to have special investigatory and punishment systems set up under law. For example, landlords, used car sellers, real estate agents and lawyers are all subject to legally-required bodies that realistically understand each of their specific trades, their potential for harming society and the kinds of scams those trades might indulge in. Not so for prostitution. Why not?
“Nasty surprises” can include finding one’s wallett has been emptied or one’s bank account raided, various subtle and not-so-subtle extortion scams, unwanted home telephone calls from a prostitute trying to lure the customer back, prosecution for child sex offending if the prostitute who looked and said she was 19 was actually 15, public exposure of innocent customers when the brothel they happen to be in is raided for running underage prostitutes. And a $70,000 child tax bill is certainly a possibility if the prostitute for whatever reason becomes pregnant as a result of her service.
A fair system would have set up a body and set of laws tailored to protect customers from the industry. That body could investigate customers’ complaints and punish errant brothels or prostitutes with a legal right of anonymity for the complainant. The same priority and anonymity police are required to give to enforcing often-bogus protection orders could have been required for protecting complainants from harrassment or violence by a brothel’s thugs. Customers could have been indemnified against child-tax liability if incurred through a paid sex service. A code of ethics could have been required for prostitutes. That code could have made it illegal for prostitutes to provide services to drunk, intellectually disabled or otherwise vulnerable people, or knowingly to people who are married and have responsibilities towards children. Some of these provisions may be difficult, but how much more difficult are they from requirements on bartenders to assess the age or state of drunkenness of customers before serving them?
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 17th September 2010 @ 11:21 am
Well Hans you do make some valid points, however I couldn’t help but notice that what you have written about prostitutes could be applied to ALL women. As stated above men always pay for sex in one way or another, which in essence means that all women are prostitutes in one way or another.
Now ladies, don’t be too offended about this, as has been made very clear on another posting, women are attracted to men with money. The reason for this is a biological drive to find a man who has a good level of resources to provide for a woman and any potential offspring. In other words, women want to have sex with good providers.
The main incentive to a man, other than companionship to be in a romantic relationship with a woman is sex. So the woman gets a source of goods while the man gets sex. In the traditional relationship, this trade is not a problem as both parties get something they value, but be under no illusions that it is an exchange, and in essence has little difference between that of a prostitute and client.
If you doubt that this is the case, then it stands to reason that you would agree that you would not be able to substitute the word woman for prostitute and man for client in Hans’s post above and get a piece of writing that makes any sense. I have done this to illustrate just how interchangeable these words in fact are. I have also made some other minor edits, particularly in the second paragraph, but have kept totally within the essence of Hans’s post.
.
So here is what I came up with:
.
.
Well, that depends. A main point of my post was that we cannot trust women because of the lax boundaries placed around them and legalized by the previous government. Because of the lack of realistic recognition of social harm caused by women, and the corresponding lack of legal measures to reduce such harm, “pretence” and “nasty surprises” are exactly what men are commonly subjected to. It seemed clear that governments aim was to legitimize the existing fraud and immorality that was rife in women, and to allow women to develop powerful, unbridled methods to exploit men financially regardless of morality, ethics or social harm.
Pretence can range from marketing tricks (such as a woman pretending to be a potential partner then informing the man, who perhaps is drunk, what she wants from him when he is aroused and anticipating sex), to false description of the goods (such as occurs with drag queens), to ongoing deceit concerning the woman’s affection’s towards the man, to misrepresentation of the cost (telling the man afterwards that she wants more from him due to this or that reason), to demanding money, to false promises (then when something different happens from what she wants, making demands anyway backed up by violent relatives.) Yes, general laws theoretically cover some of these scams but men are unlikely to avail themselves of those laws due to their resulting exposure. Other areas of society in which unscrupulous behaviour is easy tend to have special investigatory and punishment systems set up under law. For example, landlords, used car sellers, real estate agents and lawyers are all subject to legally-required bodies that realistically understand each of their specific trades, their potential for harming society and the kinds of scams those trades might indulge in. Not so for women. Why not?
“Nasty surprises” can include finding one’s wallet has been emptied or one’s bank account raided, various subtle and not-so-subtle extortion scams, unwanted home telephone calls from a woman trying to lure the man back, prosecution for child sex offending if the woman who looked and said she was 19 was actually 15, public exposure of innocent men when the woman’s house they happen to be in is raided for illegal activities. And a $70,000 child tax bill is always a possibility if the woman for whatever reason becomes pregnant as a result of her having sex with you.
A fair system would have set up a body and set of laws tailored to protect men from women. That body could investigate men’s complaints and punish errant women with a legal right of anonymity for the complainant. The same priority and anonymity police are required to give to enforcing often-bogus protection orders could have been required for protecting complainants from harassment or violence by a woman’s thugs. Men could be indemnified against child-tax liability if incurred through an unscrupulous woman. A code of ethics could have been required for women. That code could have made it illegal for women to have sex with drunk, intellectually disabled or otherwise vulnerable people, or knowingly to people who are married and have responsibilities towards children. Some of these provisions may be difficult, but how much more difficult are they from requirements on bartenders to assess the age or state of drunkenness of customers before serving them?
.
.
As you can see, it doesn’t take much to show that the problems that Han’s details apply to ALL women. The interesting thing is that we USED to have laws to protect men against women, but feminism did a fantastic job of destroying them.
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 17th September 2010 @ 4:50 pm
When a barman takes your money and hands you a pint, he doesn’t drink half of it himself.
When a prostitute takes your money, she gets just as much sex as you do.
Comment by amfortas — Fri 17th September 2010 @ 10:15 pm
Agreed. When ANY woman takes your money, resources etc as payment for sex, she gets just as much sex as you do.
Comment by Phoenix — Sat 18th September 2010 @ 11:04 am
Sex is a guilty pleasure, especially outside of the ‘mores’ of society at large. It is a ‘behind closed doors’ affair; private; intimate.
But prostitution and prostitutes have always used the ‘guilt’ part to berate men. The general message is that dirty men take advantage of women who don’t really want to do it but are forced to by simple male demand.
Yet if you look at any major city you will find that 90% of brothels are owned and operated by women. It is women who suborn other, usually far younger women, to become prostitutes, and even take most of the money.
I have in the past known a great many prostitutes. They were a substantial part of my work for several years in Melbourne and I came to know much about the business and the motivations of the ‘girls’ and the madams.
I knew several madams whom even other madams considered at the cutting edge and dare not go quite as far as. One was on a school board and used to recruit her girls from the leaving classes. Another made her girls ‘pray’ to a statue of the Goddess Isis.
A group of Madams took over the Prostitute Control Board set up by the Victorian Government on the advice of a Feminist Professor. They had a vast Taxpayer-funded budget to spend how they pleased and of course made sure that their own places were left alone by the ‘authorities’. They WERE the Authority.
Yes, I came across several men who exploited the girls, but frankly they were in a minority. The expoloiters of prostitutes are in the main the other prostitutes and the madams. All, to a woman, blame men and enjoy ripping men off.
Comment by amfortas — Wed 22nd September 2010 @ 10:27 pm
And this is different from women outside of prostitution in what way?
Comment by Phoenix — Thu 23rd September 2010 @ 10:50 am
I am not claiming a difference there, Phoenix, but I would make a distinction when asked.
A successful marriage is a partnership where different and complementary qualities are brought to the bed and table. Exploitation is not one of those qualities.
If feminism has emphasised anything at all useful it is that exploitation is a no-no. Men are learning this lesson and seeing just how we are exploited by women. That Feminism itself is internally contradictory and ignores the consequences of its own irrationality does not change that fact but will lead to its downfall if we keep pointing it out.
Comment by amfortas — Thu 23rd September 2010 @ 4:07 pm
I couldn’t agree more about exploitation not belonging in a successful relationship. However, it seems to make little difference what the profession of a woman is as to whether she will openly embrace the exploitation of men. Whether she is a prostitute or an office worker appears to make no difference whatsoever.
That is to be expected, it is quite simply the result of decades of feminist indoctrination, where it is considered perfectly acceptable for women to fleece men of their resources and provide nothing in return.
The modern marriage “contract” is really nothing more than a joke. It provides a one way agreement, whereby the woman has access to half his resources and is under no obligation whatsoever to do anything.
Sure he has legal right to half her resources too, but as women take cusy jobs with lesser hours and as a consequence earn less it is unlikely she will have the level of income that he has. She can, at a whim end the relationship, steal his children and talk half or more of his estate. On top of that he will still be required by law to provide for her, even after the relationship ends. How is this in any way not exploitation of men?
Most men enter this one sided agreement under the illusion that it is their heart that a woman is wanting. In reality it is often our wallets that are of most interest to women. All the research done on dating sites and on what women are most attracted too point to the same thing, despite the lies, women want a man who can provide for them and any potential offspring, this is a very basic instinct that is an important part of our evolution and these instincts are just as strong today as they were in caveman days. On the most basic level all other considerations are secondary.
Women do NOT want to admit that they use their sexuality to manipulate men, and draw them in so they can exploit them, to extract resources. The professional prostitute doesn’t hide this and clearly exchanges sex for money, and has already been touched on, uses additional lies and manipulation to do so. But the average woman does exactly the same thing, she just hides what she is doing in a more sophisticated way.
If you doubt that women throughout Western countries do not have a problem with exploiting men all you have to do is look at the number of them involved in the men’s rights movement. It is all very well for men to stand up for their rights, this is to be expected and encouraged. But there is another side to this. When women do nothing for the rights of men they are showing their support of the system that exploits men, they are showing their willingness to take advantage of men by their lack of action.
I believe in legal terms this is known as guilt by omission. Or in other words, guilty by virtue of not acting when appropriate.
When a woman is unaware of what is going on when it comes to men’s rights it is understandable that she would not take any action, however, when a woman does become aware she is then left with no excuse and either supports this system, and exploits men or joins the men’s rights movement in some way.
It should be abundantly clear by the almost total lack of women in the men’s rights movement just how willing women are to exploit men.
Of course this is a very foolish approach. How long will it be before these women have sons, and the very system they supported turns on their own flesh and blood.
Comment by Phoenix — Thu 23rd September 2010 @ 9:14 pm
Great post Phoenix, I would add that women in Asia (and developing countries in general), are far worse than Western women, they cheat, scam, fleece men 100 times more. If you think that the grass is greener here, then …….. you will have a BIG shock coming, but men must learn for themselves
Women are the same the world over, only the laws and culture are different. Women here are expected to provide for their parents, yes they are MORE family orientated, but the farang man is ONLY a ATM on legs, to give out your hard earned saved cash to HER family, who have never saved a penny in their lives
Comment by Kiwi In Thailand — Thu 23rd September 2010 @ 11:55 pm
Anecdotally I notice that when a woman comes into a relationship with more financial assets than the man, she will almost always insist on a strong agreement that ensures what’s hers remains hers. Men so often go into a relationship with trust and don’t push the agreement thing. I would like someone to undertake or to fund some research on this; should be fairly easy to do. It would be a newsworthy matter to show a large discrepancy between men and women in their insistence on property agreements.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 24th September 2010 @ 8:04 am
What you are saying here then Hans is when a woman enters into a relationship and she has more assets than the man, she will protect her assets, rather than trust that the man will stay with her.
This actually says more about the woman than the man. People see the world as THEY are, not as it really is. So if a woman does not trust the man, this may well indicate that it is HER that is not trustworthy rather than him.
If men on the whole enter a relationship trusting that the woman is not going to take them for all they can when the relationship breaks down, and there is a 50% chance of this happening, this indicates again more about the man than the woman. This indicates very clearly that men are more trustworthy on average, than women.
That or that the average man is simply more naieve.
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 24th September 2010 @ 9:50 am
Hello All,
Interesting little debate. However, I notice one thing is fairly blatantly missing.
There is plenty of discussion about women’s instincts to identify and breed (or at least go through the motions thereof) with a man (or men) with ample ability and resources to provide for her and their (ok: her) offspring, etc, etc.
But there seems to be no concession that it is men’s sexual needs that puts them in this predicament in the first place. If men didn’t need to get it off all the time, they wouldn’t have this problem of being so exploitable, and women would be left high and dry, so to speak. There would be almost NOTHING they could exploit to get what they want. So it’s all very well fingering women for being so “prostitutable”, but how about fingering men for being such a great pack of walking (and so easily led) dickheads?
NOT to mention the fact that (some) men will screw almost anything, including even very well-worn, haggard, old and dirty prostitutes of various genders and trans-genders. (Not to mention cows, sheep, chickens, camels, plastic dummies, loaves of bread, each others’ rectums, etc, etc). Women (except prostitutes for whom it is business not procreation) are generally a lot more choosy about who they screw. What about some admission of this gross defect as well?
We big, hairy, testosterone-laden Westeners tend to look down upon our less masculine Chinese counterparts, but maybe they’ve got a big advantage over us, one that will see them overrun us in the next few years. You see, being less testosterone-driven, once the flush of youth and early manhood is over, they tend to lose interest in wives and sex, and focus on growing their businesses and making money. Which keeps their wives happy too, because they get all the money, security, etc, PLUS they don’t have to “submit” too often either. So they can focus on bringing up the kids (though this is often done by the grandparents, so both parents can go out and work.)
The Chinese question is going to be a very interesting one over the next few years, as (if) the “Poison” (Neo-Feminism a.k.a. Man Hating) spreads to that country.
Comment by 2Heads — Fri 24th September 2010 @ 10:27 am
2heads,
I tend to agree with you.
Far too many guys in NZ think first and foremost about sexual gratification and not enough about the financial and legal consequences of getting involved with women there.
Of course this drive is encouraged and oft preyed upon by the overt and exaggerated displays of female sexuality which are endemic there. Try walking down ANY street in NZ and not being bombarded by displays of such from women in the street, billboards and other media images. Such omnipresent sexual titillation is like a constant collective encouragement to partake of the fruit from the branch – heedless of the consequences.
I once complained to a female friend of mine about this form of social pressure I as a man experienced, in NZ cities especially (I recall at the time there was a huge and visually unavoidable banner right across Queen Street in Auckland of Elle McPherson clad only in a bikini set laid down on her belly with her arse up in the air!)
My response to my female friend was
‘Well, where do I look then?
Do I walk around looking at the sky and bumping into people, lamp posts, oncoming traffic etc?
At that point she switched off, zoned out and changed topic.
I tried to have the same conversation with a few other women over the next few days. Same result. I quickly got the message it was a subject for a discussion NZ women weren’t prepared to have. Too close to the bone no doubt.
Another time I was going through teacher training and on placement in a middle school. I vividly recall seeing a troupe of 12 year old girls on stage lip syncing and gyrating in motions simulating sex in front of about 400 students one lunchtime as a concert. I looked around and saw female teachers (decked out in belly baring tank tops and glad wrap skin tight boot pants and high heels) hollering support for such a display egging the girls on.
Most of the audience were ecstatic and apparently mindless as to what was going on.
They train them young apparently.
As you can imagine it all seemed very Kafkaesque and creepy to me.
Such things became routine experiences in my life in NZ, and each in a way another little tipping point leading to my eventual decision to leave the place for somewhere healthier and less creepy.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 24th September 2010 @ 3:35 pm
Great posts Phoenix, 2Heads and Skeptik.
Excellent points delivered well.
The level of discussion in this thread is where the MRM should be.
Comment by amfortas — Fri 24th September 2010 @ 3:42 pm
You have made a very interesting point. However, the numbers actually don’t point to men’s sexual needs in New Zealand being the problem. A survey done by condom manufacturer Durex in late 2007 and then backed up by further research, some done by Massey University as recently as March this year found that New Zealand women are the most promiscuous women in the world.
With an average of 20.4 sexual partners throughout their lifetime, New Zealand women have nearly 3 times the average in the 26 countries survyed. New Zealand men by comparison had an average of 16.9 partners. The situation in New Zealand in this regard is so bad that New Zealand is the only country in the world where women have more sexual partners than men.
If you want to check into this further, here is the link to the article that I wrote on this subject.
Link
There are two possiblities here, either women in this country are so lax that they will allow any guy to seduce and screw them or, as is more likely the case it is they themselves who are doing the pursueing. Judging by the number of women who are regularly seen on our streets dressed like prostitutes it is fairly clear that the later is more likely the case. These are the women who will complain that a man is only after them for sex, but at the same time offer little other reason for a man to be in a relationship with them. These same women have not realised that men want to be with women who ACT LIKE WOMEN and have a good level of femininity to them, part of which is high sexual standards. No guy will take a woman seriously if he knows that if he does get her into bed then all that is happening is he is “having a lay on the neighbourhood mattress”. There is a name for women who sleep with a large number of men, they are called sluts, and this country is full of them.
Clearly the problem is not with men fulfilling their normal sexual needs, but a culture that actively encourages women to behave with a total lack of self control and very little in the way of consequences.
I do agree with you though that men in this country (and other Western countries as well) seriously need to wise up, grow back their balls and stop allowing women to manipulate them.
Comment by Phoenix — Fri 24th September 2010 @ 9:38 pm
Hi Phoenix,
Hear Hear!
One question though. (One that doesn’t seem to have been asked in your article post either, from my read of the article and quick scan of the many comments):
Statistically, how can NZ women average 20.4 sexual partners (and be the most promiscuous in the world), while the men average only 16.9?
If NZ was a closed population, that would be impossible, UNLESS the women are including sex with each other to make up for the missing 3.5 sex partners. In fact, the figures are even more incorrect because there are actually more women in NZ than men, so in theory, the men would need to be recycled more than the women to generate the female stat.
But even then, that doesn’t really make sense. We know that homosexual men are the most promiscuous of any group (dozens of partners PER YEAR is not uncommon), so unless the survey somehow left them out, the results don’t even begin to look right to me.
Or were they only of heterosexual people, which again would make the results impossible. (Unless the wowmen went overseas and scored the extra numbers.)
I know the Femi-Nazi Program is to turn NZ girls into “blokettes” (clones of Helen Clark, who is the epitome of a man in a female body), but do these blokettes have that much sex with each other?
Either, they must, or the stat’s are inaccurate (most likely?)
Whatever, NZ is embarked on a very interesting Social Experiment. One that is already becoming an obvious disaster.
Comment by 2Heads — Sat 25th September 2010 @ 8:58 am
Hi Skeptic,
Where’d ya go?
For me, NZ is the best place (environmentally-speaking only) in the world. Too bad about the people. But I want to stay here because I predict the end of the world (as we know it) is coming soon, and, as in “The Day of the Triffids” and other books, NZ is probably a good place to wait. It’s neither too hot nor too cold, has plenty of arable land, is sparsely populated and remote.
Where in the world would be a better place?
Comment by 2Heads — Sat 25th September 2010 @ 9:28 am
Hi amfortas,
Thanks! Actually, it’s a very complex issue, isn’t it?
To All,
IMHO: In many ways, the Neo-Feminist Movement is engaged in turning girls into men – or at least, teaching them to behave exactly like men were (falsely) vilified as being. In other words, teaching them to become what “we” (the Founding Feminists) most despise(d).
Women were the “Guardians of Virtue” and Men were Bigoted, MCP Rapist Sluts. (For those too young to remember, MCP = Male Chauvanist Pig)
Now ain’t that perverse?
But there is an old saying in the Self-Development Arena which says: “You become what you most fear.”
Women were scared of men, but now, Men are becoming scared of women. And isn’t Fear the basis of Power? Maybe the Femi-Nazis are working on that basis…
The problem is, women will soon come running for help when the sh*t hits the fan, (and men will gladly give it to them.)
I mean, honestly, how many women truck / crane / bulldozer / digger drivers, construction workers, painters, panelbeaters, rubbish collectors, drainlayers, electricians, mechanics, roadside servicepersons, tow truck drivers, TV / CCTV / burglar alarm installers, etc are there out there. Very very few. I know of one panelbeater, a few truck drivers, a few road workers (who hold the Stop/Go signs). They are the rare exception. Courier and bus driving is about as far as women typically go into the world of Man’s Work.
This is of course partly because the Femi-Nazis are trying to train (and favour a la NCEA) young women to become “Leaders” of Industry, Commerce & Government.
But women have many, many handicaps to doing many of these things well. For a start, they have the monthly ‘curse’, which in many cases makes them erratic and irrational on a regular basis (especially when combined with “The Pill”). Plus, they have a brain that is divided into semi-independent “modules”, none of which communicate well with each other (meaning they can think and say one thing one minute, and almost the opposite a few minutes later, and which is why women have to have chat groups to get all their modules updated), and which reduces their maximum potential IQ very significantly.
It is men who are geniuses (and the worst retards), because of the why the chromosomes are configured. The range of IQs for women is much narrower, so female genius (or very high IQ) is almost eliminated.
Helen Clark and Margaret Thatcher are possibly the best examples of recent successful women leaders, but they are, obviously, freaks, the exceptions that prove the rule. They probably had male brains due to some hormonal or chromosomal abnormality. Not something that any normal girl ought aspire to.
Evolution has spent millions of years making things this way (because it worked best to guarantee survival), and Helen and her cronies aren’t about to undo that in a few short decades. What they are doing instead is destroying women’s sacred role and turning them into something shallow, superficial, redundant and unwanted.
Promiscuous, rapacious, loveless, uncaring, beautiful bitches.
Too bad!
Oh, as for Prostitution: whose idea was it anyway, to legalise it in NZ? Of course, it’s to men’s advantage, not women’s. It now means that men can (happily) get their sexual needs met in an everyday business transaction, with a different woman everytime if they choose, and greatly reduce the risks of a lifelong curse. And all the woman gets is a few bucks.
Oh, and the guys who think the prostitute is getting “free sex” and getting paid, I don’t really think so. Sex for most women (and men) is actually a trigger for love and affection towards the other person (as described by the men clients), so what the women are really getting is “f*cked in the head (and/or the heart)”. In exchange for the money.
Most prostitutes end up “ruined women” in some way or another (as also described, with no moral values). And the money – well – what would you rather?
Comment by 2Heads — Sat 25th September 2010 @ 10:33 am
This statement is logically inconsistent:
For it acknowledges that female prostitutes may develop romantic feelings for their male clients, but not the reverse. And at the end of the day the risk of developing such feelings is mutual whilst the PAYMENT is one way male to female.
That’s why I reckon men using prostitutes is an act of pathetic self deprecation.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 25th September 2010 @ 11:29 am
While I agree that the statistics do not appear to make sense on the surface, you have given your own answer here.
New Zealand is NOT a closed population, people come and go from here all the time (pun intended). Could it be that part of the reason for the difference is that foreign men have come to know New Zealand as a nation which they can visit for a “sex holiday”?
http://fooyoh.com/?mid=menknowpause_sex_bettersex&page=10&document_srl=778141
(Sorry couldn’t like it for some reason)
.
.
Of course another factor that you have already touched on is the well known “man shortage”. This is largely caused by men leaving New Zealand to pursue better quality opportunities, and better quality women overseas. Would it be fair to say that these men will have had sexual encounters before they leave?
.
.
On top (pun again intended) of this there is the situation with bisexuality. It doesn’t take long on a dating site such as NZ dating to see the sheer number of women in New Zealand who identify themselves as bisexual. Compare this to other countries and it’s easy to come to the conclusion that more women identify themselves in this way then in a large number of other countries.
This is hardly surprising as there appears to be a direct link between bisexuality and feminism.
Link
Comment by Phoenix — Sat 25th September 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Hi Skeptic,
Really? Do you think:
doesn’t do that?
Anyway, I agree, I didn’t complete my thesis there. In a hurry…
Taking an extreme point of view, the Male is the “Perpetrator”, the prostitute the “Victim”. The Power is with the Male client.
The Male decides if and when he wants sex, he cruises wherever he cruises seeking it, finds a suitable candidate and makes his offer, which is either accepted, rejected or negotiated. But he is calling the shots, simply because “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” He comes (pun whatever) and goes as he chooses, and picks whoever he likes. He is the one “in charge” of the transaction (though, granted, it may not work out as planned.) However, far more prostitutes end up dead than clients do. (Plumley-Walker springs to mind, and that wasn’t exactly murder but over-zealous service on the part of his hireling(s).)
The Prostitute is the “Service Provider”, who sits or stands about wherever (street corner, massage parlour, etc), and waits for the Client to show up. She is at his beck and call, and (if a street worker), comes running over to his car window when he signals her.
She is servile, he is the Served. No two ways about that.
He has no need to concern himself with her sexual gratification (and this would probably be unwanted anyway), and only considers himself and getting what he paid for.
The Prostitute simply gets used as a vessel for the client to ejaculate into. She isn’t “getting free sex” – she’s simply getting f*cked. As I said before. It’s the guy who’s doing the f*cking, isn’t it? So, there’s a clear Power gradient, a “Perp” and a Victim”, isn’t that so?
Nevertheless, feelings may develop on either or both sides. I don’t deny that.
Sure, the hooker gets paid, but who gains the most and who loses the most? It’s not purely about the money. It’s like trading muskets for land. Who’s getting the better deal?
I say the Prostitute loses the most. The guy hands over a few bucks and is off. He feels better, relieved. Maybe back to his wife and family. A free agent. The hooker returns to the street or wherever she started, a few dollars richer, but basically, plundered and exploited. Still out on the street, prostituting herself all over again. For another guy, and another. Not what I’d call “The Joy of Sex” or “Free Sex, and Money.”
Comment by 2Heads — Sat 25th September 2010 @ 10:30 pm
Couldn’t agree more. The prostitute it simply providing a service while the man is taking advantage of that service.
There is also a basic difference in the sexuality between men and women to consider as well. Speaking in generalizations because there are exceptions, us men have the ability to turn our emotions off, while women do not have this ability. So a man can literally have sex and feel absolutely nothing on an emotional level for the woman he is f**king. Women in general cannot do this, hence the saying “Making love is what women do while men are f**king them.”
Perhaps this is the reason why the overwhelming majority of prostitutes are on drugs, it is the only way they can cope with the mental side of being a walking sex toy, that is used by men for their gratification.
Comment by Phoenix — Sat 25th September 2010 @ 11:47 pm
Hey guys,
How can she not be getting free sex when she’s getting sexual stimulation. It’s not like there’s no body contact.
Like I said before I’ve met prostitutes who say as much and reckon their male clients are mugs.
They don’t say their exploited.
Quite the opposite.
Some make a huge amount of money; a couple of years on the game gets them through university WITHOUT a student loan.
And what’s all this about prostitutes having absolutely no say about the place, price, practice and patron?
Again not what the hookers I’ve talked to would agree with.
Plundered, exploited, simply a vessel, a victim?
No, they simply made a lifestyle choice for which THEY are responsible.
As my Dad used to say ‘they’ve made their beds, now they can lie in them.’
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 26th September 2010 @ 5:47 am
Phoenix, Skeptic,
I dunno. I don’t have any real experience with hookers. I know (or knew) a couple of women who had/have been prostitutes. Both were (IMO) pretty screwed up. Whether before, or as a result thereof, I can’t say.
But maybe Skeptic is saying that these women are not different from many men, and can have sex and feel nothing.
But my own experience has been that if I had sex with someone I didn’t really like, I felt very “wrong” about it. Not sure exactly what the feeling was, but maybe a combination of cheap, dirty, dishonest and guilty. But definitely didn’t want to do it any more. If I was a hooker, I’d be very unhappy, having to have sex with all the women who couldn’t get it naturally. I know I’d be an impotent failure. I don’t know what that says about real hookers.
Comment by 2Heads — Sun 26th September 2010 @ 8:39 am
Skeptic,
A question or two if I may?
The girls/women who earned enough from prostitution to put themselves through University – what nationality(-ies) were they?
And what would you say of their subsequent morals/ethics and personalities?
It seems to me that a woman has to give up a lot of her femininity to become a prostitute. That is certainly true of the (former) prostitutes I know/knew. They are/were what I would call rough. Even the one I still know. She tries to be (or seem) feminine, but it just isn’t convincing somehow. There’s something missing (or, more likely, additional) that obscures it.
But maybe they were like that to start with, I can’t say.
Perhaps it’s just a very sad byproduct of the Neo-Feminist NZ Culture. The Neo-Feminists have just got it SO badly wrong. It seems as if they think going backwards is an improvement.
Comment by 2Heads — Sun 26th September 2010 @ 9:38 am
Prostitution is to supply a demand.
Either a need or a forbidden wish
It is nonetheless a command
many men prefer to a home dish.
Just like any KID
an ego looks for a stroker
For sometimes, too much of a lid
may stifle a man’s gilded poker
BUT
For all we know
whether chicken or egg
when it comes to a blow
would a MAN buy or beg?
Comment by VictimByGender — Sat 27th November 2010 @ 9:10 pm
I just discovered that the woman my son’s father – we are divorced – wishes to marry made her nest egg as an escort in Japan a few years ago, and came back to New Zealand with it to buy herself some of the very expensive real estate here in your country. I was told by another Kiwi woman that this is not uncommon, that a surprising number of Kiwi women do it, and there is no moral problem. Sex work is not criminal in New Zealand, and promiscuity or commodification of sex isn’t, either.
Comment by Lisa — Sun 13th February 2011 @ 4:52 pm
I will say “I told you so”.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 7th April 2013 @ 11:15 am
33. lisa they had to legalize it down here and rename it – it had another name previously – was formally called “Divorce” ably assisted by the family court legal department who act as head pimp.
The family courts here are littered with well intentioned men who thought the chick they picked up and married actually loved them……hahaha, the business plan for the more discerning hooker is this……
– Sleep with just the one man for three years and no more and you can earn so much more – you only have to put up with just the one man – you don’t even have to have sex with him very often – first couple of weeks to consummate the marriage is all that is required, then abstain – because you can – no need to sleep with a hundred or more strangers, you get to sleep in the same bed instead of in a car or numerous motels – and ultimately if you like it enough – you get to keep the house and anything he has left in his wallet when your three years are up – if challenged you can lie your arse off to the family court ( sorry to your pimp ) without consequence – to keep up appearances and perpetuate the lie…..
then start again – be more selective, refine your business plan – the world is your oyster –
Pssssst dont tell those still mucking around on hunters corner………
Comment by hornet — Wed 31st July 2013 @ 6:12 pm
35 you forgot the added bonus if they decide to have a child too.
Comment by Scott B — Thu 1st August 2013 @ 12:47 pm
Hi, of course this post is in fact good and I have learned
lot of things from it regarding blogging. thanks.
Comment by http://seduceanddate.blogspot.com — Wed 14th May 2014 @ 9:40 am
Prostitution is an important tool in society.
It has bad outcomes and good outcomes.
We are so rapt up in the bad and ignore the good, that we don’t see the tool that it is.
The bad:
Underage prostitution. Parliament was correct at placing the age at 18 for supply. The administration by the police is in error however. In one case a 17 year old was working with the knowledge of the brothel operator. The brothel owner was prosecuted but the worker was not, despite being over the age of criminal liability as an adult. Interference in sexual fantasy development is one of the most dangerous psychological things that can be done to a human mind. Its outcomes include paedophilia.
The good:
Underage prostitution. Parliament was correct at placing the age at 18 for purchase. The administration by mental health services is in error however. In thousands of examples sexual activity occurs with perversely negative structures with young males and females. This interference into sexual fantasy development is a taboo subject. Orgasm is a self/experienced trained psychological behaviour. It occurs in the subconscious.
The bad:
People turn to prostitution for many reasons, desires for a sample of compassion, joy, associative revenge etc. With males where the sexual fantasy development used to achieve Orgasm is destroyed by life experience, it must be replaced and no law will stop it being replaced. Replacing it into a fantasy with a teenager as its focus is a disaster for him and possibly society.
The good:
Society must recognise the importance of sexual fantasy development. Males behaving with offence based behaviours regarding sex, exhibits a giant red flag that something’s wrong in regard to sexual fantasy development. The 14 year old sex offender may be goaled, counselled, and drugged to control behaviour. Is it working?
The tool:
Professionally trained sex therapists.
What are they?
They are the doctor compared to the nurse.
They are the sex therapist compared to the prostitute.
Comment by The man in Absentia — Sun 20th July 2014 @ 8:36 am
Cukup berguna konten artikel informasi dapat
dibangun mempertahankan jasa dari hanya yang Bantuan dari perbaikan ilmu
Berita unik
Comment by berita unik di dunia — Tue 23rd June 2015 @ 2:31 pm
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/growth-in-burkina-faso-gold-mining-fuels-human-trafficking-for-sex-work/F4L6WME5O6CPUFR6YYQJDB6Y3E/
These things occur as a result of Law.
Especially if prostitution is illegal.
So anything can happen.
Money, and lonely men, hmmm.
So if your already breaking the law.
How is exploitation different.
Legal prostitution is different.
Safety around STDs increases.
And unplanned pregnancy, prevention improves.
A more formal relationship exists around income.
The prostitute, knows the fees, to employers.
Minimum payments for services.
Health schemes.
Retirement/saving schemes.
More restrictive with bad drugs.
More targeted to bad actor, prosecutions.
Enables sex therapy specialists.
Helps restrict child prostitution.
Creates taxation income for governments.
Allows better access to government services.
Commensurate/proportional to income.
I’m sure a person could write a piece about prostitution’s bad points. But I can’t be bothered doing that.
You can see the bad points in the article.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 1st May 2021 @ 10:52 am