"Men won’t touch them where they come from," said a male "sex worker," quoted in an article with a title in the form of a question that assumes a fact I didn't know was in evidence: "Why Is Female Sex Tourism Embraced By Society?"
Via Instapundit, who says: "Female sexuality is always to be celebrated, unlike that icky and dangerous male sexuality." But that's missing something, and I'm saying that as an "old dog" — shouldn't that be bitch? — myself. If male sexuality is "icky and dangerous," how can an older woman leave the safety and comfort of her home country and travel somewhere foreign specifically for the purpose of exposing her vulnerable body — in some private, as-yet-unknown space — to this grotesque and physically stronger being? I don't see how you can "celebrate" the woman here without also celebrating the male.
What I see being celebrated is the power of money and the value of sex.
Why would a libertarian get miffed about that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
In this case the "strings attached" may bear diseases. That's the icky part.
Instapundit was only complaining about the double standard. Libertarians never believe sex is icky. Some believe sex with libertarians would be icky. I know, I have asked.
What I see being celebrated is the power of money and the value of sex.
Why would a libertarian get miffed about that?
I think Instapundit is decrying the media (et al.) double standard toward that activity when it comes to men and women, not there mere fact of it on some moral plane.
Is Althouse suggesting the media would celebrate "power of money and the value of sex" in the same manner if it were men "exploiting" third-world women?
I think that's Instapundit's point.
There is a bit of a difference. Women sex tourists are paying for some amount of romance, even it's faked. Men are simply paying for sex.
Libertarianism is about the proper role of government. Social attitudes, taboos, manners, etc., all become more important as guides for human behavior. There's nothing unlibertarian about casting judgments or decrying double standards.
I'm curious about which nationality stinks the most.
Libertarianism is about the proper role of government. Social attitudes, taboos, manners, etc., all become more important as guides for human behavior. There's nothing unlibertarian about casting judgments or decrying double standards.
A thin black man on a beach, flashing a smile, telling mostly white, less attractive women what they want to hear about his hopes for them -- complimenting her value and sexuality -- to get what he wants.
Where have we seen that that movie -- and it's sequel -- before?
A libertarian would get miffed because of the female supremacist attitude the double standard represents.
The pictures are hilarious.
tits.
Straight white men go to Asia. Straight white women go to Africa and the Caribbean. Where do the GLBTQ people go?
"Where do the GLBTQ people go?"
Well if you are still in good shape you don't need to go anywhere.
I have heard Thailand, Romania and Hungary are possible places.
So these women don't get any white guys?
That movie looks totally sad and depressing.
Professor, why would you give link traffic to this idiot? "Woman and homosexuals may not comment here. They will be banned." ??? I don't understand why he thinks he can call himself a "libertarian", when he is so afraid of more than half the population, he has to ban their opinions.
The story, while of slight prurient interest, doesn't even make a novel point. Yes, there is a double standard for men and women about sex. For a long time it was in favor of men, now in some small way it is against them. Too damn bad.
Women go on the road and get some, it's called 'Sex Tourism'. Men go on the road and get some, it's called a business trip.
No, Temujin, that's not how it goes. Quit misrepresenting two different things as the same.
A business trip with hired sex on the side is just that for men and women; a business trip where they bought a hooker. And when men or women travel to a place on vacay specifically to hire prostitutes, it's called "Sex Tourism". Men were first to be noted doing this very thing, in places like Thailand or the Phillipines.
Your position is the sexist one, positing that noticing women doing it too with the same disapproving tone as used on men, is some sort of double standard.
The libertarian miffing stems from the hypocrisy that is celebrated for women and condemned for men.
"Is Althouse suggesting the media would celebrate "power of money and the value of sex" in the same manner if it were men "exploiting" third-world women?"
No. I'm making a specific point about incoherence and implication. Please understand what it is. It's not belabored and it's written concisely to be amusing.
If you don't get it, I'm not the blogger for you.
"Professor, why would you give link traffic to this idiot? "Woman and homosexuals may not comment here. They will be banned." ??? I don't understand why he thinks he can call himself a "libertarian", when he is so afraid of more than half the population, he has to ban their opinions."
The traffic I sent is nothing compared to what Glenn sent and I questioning Glenn.
I can imagine a girl with a decent mind and some talent straight out of a Yale Women's Lit degree over to Salon, The Atlantic or Slate and then at some fundraisers for HIlary Clinton at some point in the future.
Maybe a book deal about the intersection of mommy blogging and the environment, or a few lectures about why human rights is good for individual empathy with some favorable social-science/neuroscience du jour sprinkled in.
It's tough out there.
"As one guy told me "I don't the women for sex, I pay them to leave in the morning"."
One guy one time asked me why does a chicken cross the road. He offered the witty and surprising answer, to get to the other side.
Oh! The characters I've met in my journeys!
"Female sexuality is always to be celebrated, unlike that icky and dangerous male sexuality."
Remember that song "When I think about you I touch myself"? Imagine if it were sung by a guy.
CREEPY!!!!
Sung by a woman? How risque!
It's not incoherent for a libertarian to decry a social double standard.
One libertarian may think sex tourism is morally wrong, and another think it morally permissible. What would make them both libertarians is that they both think it ought to be legal.
Good example is adultery. Almost all Americans think it is wrong, and almost no Americans think it should be criminal. Some libertarians might argue that adultery is breach of contract and as such might deserve civil penalties, and some might argue the opposite, but either position is compatible.
Let's put it this way. I have a set of moral rules. I am convinced that these are good moral rules and that if everyone behaved the way I do, the world on the balance would be a better place. If I was not convinced of that that I would not hold these rules, but some different set.
However, I am equally convinced that if everyone were COMPELLED by government force to obey my moral rules, the world would on the whole be a worse place. I am convinced that depriving adult humans of their choices is a greater wrong than whatever wrong it is the deprivation is intended to prevent, provided that these choices do not involve direct harm to others.
There's no contradiction there.
It's like saying everyone should eat broccoli, and also saying that laws mandating the eating of broccoli would be evil and stupid.
Gabriel Hanna wrote:
One libertarian may think sex tourism is morally wrong, and another think it morally permissible. What would make them both libertarians is that they both think it ought to be legal.
Good example is adultery. Almost all Americans think it is wrong, and almost no Americans think it should be criminal.
Not exactly similar since adultery is a personal relationship and prositution is a business transaction. So should you make a personal transaction illegal and punishable by jail time? Not unless you're doing something that is illegal (like having sex with a kid). But could you make business transaction illegal? Sure.
That's why the whole drugs should be legal because you should be able to put what ever you want in your body argument is bunk. Because I don't question that.
IF you have rat poison in your cupboard and want to smoke it, more power to you. If you want to mix and combine all your household cleaners and see what kind of high you get if you freebase them have at it.
The question is should you be able to sell it to others? and there it's not cut and dried.
However, I am equally convinced that if everyone were COMPELLED by government force to obey my moral rules, the world would on the whole be a worse place. I am convinced that depriving adult humans of their choices is a greater wrong than whatever wrong it is the deprivation is intended to prevent, provided that these choices do not involve direct harm to others.
Except there are rules imposed by govt force compelling people to behave a certain way that you probably agree with (like laws against theft). Was govt justified in passing said laws? And do those laws make the world a worse place?
In the case of drugs and whether we should legalize them, should we legalize krokodil?
http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/09/krokodil-crocodile-russia-flesh-eating-drug/
What I see being celebrated is the power of money and the value of sex.
Why would a libertarian get miffed about that?
You are overlooking the gist of his point to shift the conversation in a different direction to make your own.
Which is fine, but it's something you berate your commenters for doing to you.
I never heard of this before. I can't imagine there are a lot of women interested in such relations. I'm not comparing the relative morals of the sexes but their relatives sizes. It looks a high risk encounter. If I were a horny woman, I'd stay home and read Fift Shades of Gray, which is, in fact, what most women do.
I realize I am something of a hermit, but I do not recognize this society, or indeed this universe, in which Female Sex Tourism is Embraced.
"Instapundit was only complaining about the double standard."
"They can act like pigs! Why can't we act like pigs? It's not faaiiiirrrrr!"
Whatever. Don't act like a pig, and it becomes a non-issue.
A blackie and Haitian calling a whitey stinky must really fucking hurt for the old fat whitey sex tourists.
The difference to me is that the women, however unsavory, are going to have sex with young men, who enter freely into the arrangement. Western men generally go to Thailand to have sex with children who have no say in the matter.
Paco Wové: I realize I am something of a hermit, but I do not recognize this society, or indeed this universe, in which Female Sex Tourism is Embraced.
Butthurt Sperg universe, from which Glenn Reynolds reports regularly. Third parallel universe wormhole to the right. Careful, if you miss the turn you might end up in Rape Culture universe, populated by a different species of vigilantly butthurt half-wits. I'd just stay home, if I were you.
Althouse playing dumb again. Reynolds is clearly not miffed about "celebrating the power of money and the value of sex", but about society's double standard regarding when to 'celebrate' and when to revile.
Why would a libertarian get miffed about that?
Not miffed about that. Miffed about the double standard and the hypocrisy; most often by the same creaky old female sex tourists who come home and then criticize male sex tourists.
Without a hint of self-awareness about their hypocrisy.
I don't buy the thesis. I don't think our society embraces either women or men traveling around the world (or downtown) to engage prostitutes. Apparently, MOVIES portray a particular attitude about this, movies I've never heard of. Movies also celebrate demon bikers and and a lot of other silly things. Hiring hookers, male or female, is pathetic.
"It's not incoherent for a libertarian to decry a social double standard."
Yes, but look at the incoherence that I pointed out. I believe I'm raising several new things here.
My central point is "I don't see how you can "celebrate" the woman here without also celebrating the male."
Glenn contends that male sexuality is portrayed as "icky and dangerous," and my point is that it doesn't make sense to say that in the context of female sex tourism.
I found that paradox interesting. I'm disappointed that no one else is following on this point. You're saying the usual things that are said about double standards, and these are very obvious. I'd like some attention to the paradox that made me post this.
I also don't believe that female sex tourism is embraced or celebrated. If it were, then, yes, duh, there would be a double standard with the disapproved-of male sex tourism.
But the females are traveling to be with males, and THOSE males are, in that context, clearly not portrayed as "icky and dangerous." So the non-icky, non-dangerous male is getting press.
Can we talk about that?
paul a'barge: ...most often by the same creaky old female sex tourists who come home and then criticize male sex tourists.
Oh noes! Teh hypocracy!
Are there a lot of creaky old female sex tourists out there getting all sniffy and pissy about male sex tourists? OK, I'll take your word for it that there are. Now, are you telling me that you actually give a rat's ass about what some small subset of deeply pathetic old broads think about anything, let alone their opinion of male sexual behavior in any form?
No, you don't. Neither does anybody else.
Without a hint of self-awareness about their hypocrisy.
But that's nothing compared to the way some other people can be utterly unaware of having a huge stick up their butts about an absolute non-issue.
"a safe space on the web for those men who don’t agree with the direction that Western culture is headed...Women and homosexuals are prohibited from commenting here."
Jeez, what a bunch of pussies. Nothing like picking up the worst attributes of those whom you consider your 'opponents'.
"Not miffed about that. Miffed about the double standard and the hypocrisy; most often by the same creaky old female sex tourists who come home and then criticize male sex tourists."
WHO is doing this? It strikes me as entirely made up. Going to prostitutes is generally disapproved of, and I certainly don't think it's more approved of for women except to the extent that some people are concerned not with prostitution per se but with the use of children and/or adults who are being coerced.
The story at The Daily Mail has male prostitutes who are apparently of-age and who seem to be in charge of themselves. That excludes the worse aspects of the kind of sex tourism we're afraid men do.
But if you focus us purely on sex with of-age prostitutes who are making their own choice to engage in this particular economic activity, I don't believe there is a showing of a double standard that puts male customers in a worse light than female customers.
I think it's more common to say that the female customers are too old and unattractive to get men in some other way and/or to regard them as defiling or debasing their bodies. It's more common to say that the man is going to a prostitute to get sex with a woman who won't behave in various was that women do (like demanding a relationship or wanting a lot of money spent on her).
I don't see the big anti-male double standard if you compare what is comparable here.
These boys could come to America to do the work Americans are not willing to do.
One lady said "I used to think Derrick was respectful of me and really loved me, until I heard him laughing with the other boys one night. It turned my blood cold."
Who was the last guy who thought their hooker loved and respected him? Who cared whether they did or not?
One more way that men and women are not the same.
I mean, why did you say "creaky old"?
You sound misogynistic.
"Who was the last guy who thought their hooker loved and respected him? Who cared whether they did or not?"
May I recommend Chester Brown's "Paying For It"?
"Jeez, what a bunch of pussies. Nothing like picking up the worst attributes of those whom you consider your 'opponents'."
This masculinists are a buncha girls.
I expect some of these guys are quite dangerous. Disease is an obvious danger, because condoms are not always enough. (It's a danger for the guy too.) Then there is the violence and robbery issue. Women who have sex with male strangers are always in some danger, because males are stronger. There is always the risk that these beach guys might decide unilaterally to increase the fee for the transaction.
I have known a few gay male men, mostly still in the closet types, who have been robbed and beaten by their stranger intended partners in reliance on the assumption that the incident will not be reported at all out of fear of exposure. One guy who was out simply got the shit beaten out of him.
So in that sense this is very dangerous conduct. That danger has little to do with rapacious male sexuality and all to do with criminal mentality. Women can do the same to their johns, either through threat of exposure or with male help through violence.
Does it really matter which kind of danger is involved?
I suppose all of this is an argument for legalizing and regulating the whole enterprise.
Ok I read the synopsis of Paying For It.
Sounds icky to me.
An underlying theme is that often icky seems better than nothing.
Another way to express it is that beer goggles do not always require beer.
Yeah, right. If female sexuality were celebrated, older women wouldn't be travelling overseas to get laid. They could get laid here.
Is only young female sexuality celebrated? No. Men who sleep around are called normal, virile. Women-- whores.
Glenn is just sawing that old axe he and his wife insist on constantly grinding. It's so boring and stupid.
Old, unattractive people of either gender paying for sex from younger, more attractive people is depressing, what can I say?
And men aren't simply paying for sex and women for "romance". I know a guy of modest means in First World terms who brags about his retirement in a third world country - so he can play the fat American pasha - and yet he ostensibly has no idea that he is exploiting the local population. He thinks the 20-something and her mother are simply "less repressed" than in America.
No, they're dirt poor, you deluded freaking idiot. Of course, he's in poor health as well. It's depraved.
It's sad every which way you look at it, including the fact that old people don't seem to be able to find enjoyment by just have sex with each other on a non-paying basis; that they haven't 'dealt with it' by middle or senior age.
"Suddenly Last Summer" (1959). There's nothing new under the sun.
Been doing some traveling abroad eh Althouse?
Lawnboy not cutting it for you anymore?
"Ugly."
This masculinists are a buncha girls.
WFT is a masculinist? Other than the ever-present evidence of Althouse misandry rearing its ugly head, of course.
The answer is obvious :
The number of babies that are born does not go down even if many men are killed.
The number of babies that are born DOES go down even if a single woman does.
Hence, men are far more expendable than women. Every society on earth will send a large number of men to die before a single woman faces harm.
For that reason, women are excused for a ton of things a man would not be excused for, sex tourism being just one of them.
The long friendship between Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse will cool in the near future.
Glenn like to link to Ann because a) he wants to show he has Democrat friends, and b) a fellow law prof would have a lot in common outside of politics.
But it is now apparent that Ann Althouse simply has too many views that are directly opposed to those of Dr. Helen and her anti-misandry campaign.
This friendship is cooling...
Post a Comment