Your Ideals

Here is an exercise for you men: Think of your (future) daughter. Think of how you would like her to walk, dress and behave. Think of her going out to town, hanging out with boys, etc. Imagine you can make her attitude and appearance as ideal as you'd like. Make this into a set of rules for what you think is proper behaviour that would encourage respect.

Now, in order to avoid hypocrisy, apply these rules to potential girlfriends and wives.

My Sin is Better than Yours

It is a common claim that when men cheat it is less significant than when women do it. That men do it superficially for thrills while women give more of themselves when they cheat. This claim says that although neither is condoned, there is a qualitative difference between an unfaithful man and an unfaithful woman.

I can prove it. When most women do it they blame their husbands for lack of emotional support. When most men do it, it's just a cheap thrill no matter what their wives are like. In other words when women cheat they look for much more than just sex. Up until now I thought it was just hypocrisy but thanks to women grumbling, I now have proof.

So at first sight, when women do it, they're much worse.

Then again, who's to say what's worse? A man who doesn't value sex in the first place, or a woman who gives her intimacies and emotions to someone besides her husband?

It's actually quite a brilliant move, wouldn't you say? Instead of feeling guilty, we just declare our sex as meaningless and have fun.

Of course, you women could always try to be equal to men and devalue sex and have meaningless flings, but somehow I don't think you'll find it as easy, or be able to keep it up for too long. If I'm wrong, then we're a lot worse off than I thought.

Compatibility

I, as you may have guessed, think homosexuality is wrong. This opinion is almost guaranteed to automatically label me a closed-minded bigot and turn many people away without a second thought. I always find it amazing how some issues and their knee-jerk responses have been so strongly imprinted in people that their brain automatically closes down whenever they're mentioned.

So what possible arguments can I make against homosexuality?

There's the obvious one about nature and how the anus wasn't designed for such activities, not to mention the lack of reproductive goals. But one can argue that heterosexuals do the same activities, and that reproduction isn't necessarily the goal of a relationship or of sexual expression. The argument still stands if one holds nature as a yardstick or metaphysical symbol for what's right and wrong, but who does? Also, Adam and Eve were separated after they were told to reproduce, proving that the male/female relationship has nothing to do with reproduction!

In order to adequately argue against it, I must make some assumptions and point out some truths that, as usual, are subtle but powerful. For example, I assume that the goal of a marriage is the ultimate relationship. That people want the most potent things in life instead of being happy with weak or fake replicas. I also assume that people are smart enough to notice that there are inherent core differences in men and women that go beyond the physical or even in their personalities.

Everything about men and women show their different essences: A man likes conquest, he is aggressive, he wants to dominate, explore new things and ideas, put his mark on all possible things. He is phallic and out in the open, he floods the female with millions of abstract potentialities, penetrates, gives. He is abstract and represents all possibilties but needs shape and form and some discipline.

A woman likes to build, she is a bundle of desires, a hole, hidden, private. She takes a single potentiality and builds it up slowly and methodically into something concrete. She is practical, her spirituality more down to earth from which she was created; she is more connected to materiality and therefore can control it better and elevate it. She needs, she uses, she builds and forms with the ability to nurture and feed, but needs something to work with and fill or guide her desires.

The dynamics of give and take here are exquisite. By taking in her special way, the woman provides an invaluable service and is actually giving. Each has unique powers that the other needs. The qualities of each gender are fine-tuned and separated beautifully.

Adam was created both male and female in one body and only separated afterwards. Together Adam and Eve create the perfect interlocking being on all fronts. The perfect physical compatibility is only a symbol of deeper interlocking parts. The steps needed for creating a baby is symbolic of their relationship and the consequence of this perfect unification is continuity and survival.

In Hebrew, 'man' & 'woman' is 'ish' & 'isha'. The two different letters in ish & isha together form the name of God but if you remove these two letters, both genders are only 'esh' - a consuming fire.

So along comes a man who desires only another man. Although the other man is different, he is not different enough. At the core they are the same. The man is in love with himself. He has no eyes for his perfect counterpart but prefers what he knows in himself instead. It is narcissism. It has no potential for growth because they are two of the same that can't create a compound.

This is also the reason why most homosexuals are so 'creative'. They are in love with their own whims and usually, their art is undisciplined, unbalanced.

Some homosexuals intuitively know this which is why they emphasize their feminine side or take on dominant/submissive roles in their relationships. They need contrast because they both have gaps which are not being fulfilled.

The argument that homosexuality exists in a person's DNA does not contradict anything I said, and, if true, only proves that it is harder to control or eradicate. If a person is born psychotic that does not mean we should accept him for what he is and give his disease free reign, but we try to find ways to get around the problem so that he can be a perfect social being and live life to its fullest.

The Tease

What's with the term 'exotic dancer'? Yet another asinine politically correct term for women who can't face what their job really is. What's the difference? One dancer takes clothes off as part of the show, the other comes on stage with her clothes off, both are there for cheap titillation performing for horny folk. What next, a prostitute will be called 'exotic masseuse'?

Once I spoke to an 'exotic dancer', she sent me pictures of herself in skimpy goth outfits then moaned and complained as to why all men are such jerks and treat her so bad. Incredible!

And men, there are reasons why they call it a strip-tease. It's not because they take their clothes off slowly, but because that's all they are going to do. If you want more, and their job is to make you want more, you'll have to pay for it around the back. That's the name of the game, and you are stupid enough to go to these places and spend all your money.

Someone once asked me whether I think strippers or the men watching are worse, and who it is more demeaning for. Frankly, who cares? They deserve each other. Just as long as they don't reproduce, they can stick together like a couple of slimy leeches.

Whoral Ground

Here is a poem I found written by Carol Leigh, otherwise known as Scarlot Harlot - an outspoken prostitute. The part about 'pleasure, baby or hundred dollars' is questionable but otherwise it makes its point well.

CHEAP

Cheap is when you fuck them just to shut them up.
Cheap is when you do it because they are worth so much.
Cheap is when you suck them till your jaws hurt
so they won't say you're uptight.

Cheap is when you do it to keep them home at night.
Cheap is when you want less than pleasure,
a baby, or a hundred dollars.

Cheap is when you do it for security.
Cheap is what you are before you learn to say no.
Cheap is when you do it to gain
approval, friendship, love.

To Whore or Not to Whore

I won't get into another useless rant against prostitution. Instead, I'll play devil's advocate.

First, let's examine some of the popular and feminist arguments regarding prostitutes:

'They were forced, slave-traded, blackmailed or it involved underage girls': When this is true, I have no argument here obviously. But most prostitutes made a choice, some are even happy or treat it as a regular boring job with a few highlights (I base this on interviews and reports I read), and some (like the recent incidents with high school girls) do it for quick cash and are indifferent to everything else.

'It's demeaning (to both sides)': Again, they do it to themselves and many will tell you they've come to terms with it and even have some fun. Others ignore all humiliations when they hear they can charge $100-$500 per customer, so excuse me if I seem less than sympathetic. People constantly humiliate themselves in all sorts of ways. Who are you to decide what is demeaning for them?

'It encourages men to see women as sex objects': Now this is an interesting and possibly valid argument. There are always high-class prostitutes, geishas and call-girls that may even elevate the profession into a kind of 'respectable' social interaction. But even there it can be argued that the end result is the same, only subtler. On the other hand, people make themselves into sex objects and harm their gender in many, many ways besides whoring. Why should I fixate on this particular method? Should we declare sleeping around due to insecurity illegal? What about groupies? Models? Actors? Morally, prostitution may be questionable, but it seems blown out of proportion to me.

'Poverty made them do it': So let me get this straight: If a poor man steals, mugs, or murders in order to support a family, should I feel sorry for him too? In a way, he did it out of desperation. But in the end he gave in, made a decision to do wrong, as well as break the law. And anyways, almost all cases aren't that extreme that the only resort left is the last one. I'm sick of bleeding hearts trying to shift the blame away from the prostitute and onto the client for taking advantage of her.

'Men cajoled and pressured them into doing it': Oh, give me a break. That's too weak to even address.

'Damaging competition for girl-friends and wives': Let me get this straight: This means that either you're so insecure you turn your neurotic whining against whores, or that you're really less interesting than a whore and can't keep your man interested, which is pathetic, or, that you chose to marry a man who just can't stay away from whores - what does that say about you and your choices?

Actually, this is an interesting argument for even more reasons. The underlying assumption is that men are easily lured by professional sex workers and won't be able to resist. It also assumes that the woman's job is to satisfy a man so that he won't wander, and that she can actually succeed in doing this. All of these are true up to a certain extent, but if you think about it, this argument only insults both men and women in almost every way possible.

By the way, now there are feminist prostitutes arguing for their rights and respect, and others are even arguing that it empowers them. Try this article on for size.

A few interesting statistics:

"Percentages of male and female prostitutes varies from city to city. Estimates in some larger cities suggest 20-30% of prostitutes are male.": Right then. So all of this applies to male prostitutes as well. *sigh*

"Although violence and the threat of violence is a serious problem, some populations of prostitutes show no higher incidence of violence and abuse than women in general.": There goes the demeaning to women argument. Then again, this can be argued in many different ways: Probably, the overall effect spreads out to women in all professions. Or maybe the prostitutes give the men what they want so that, statistically, you would expect non-prostitutes to be abused more often. You can say that prostitutes don't report most acts of abuse, but then again, neither do other women.

"Some researchers suggest that prostitutes, in general, suffer from 'negative identities' or lack of self esteem. A 1986 study by Diane Prince, however, found call girls and brothel workers had higher self esteem than before they became prostitutes. 97% of call girls liked themselves 'more than before.'": Damn, you girls are pathetic. Can't you handle your sexual inhibitions, insecurities and repressions without resorting to prostitution?

"The National Task Force on Prostitution suggests that over one million people in the US have worked as prostitutes in the United States, or about 1% of American women.": And, I'm assuming those are just the ones that could bring themselves to admit it, and the ones that didn't disqualify isolated events when 'they needed the money'.

The truth is, there is almost no reason why prostitution should not be legalized. They will do it anyways and it will make life less dangerous for the people involved, providing official protection or legal recourses, as well as make violent pimps more obsolete. The act is between two consenting adults. The costs involved in uselessly harassing prostitutes and brothels on a weekly basis can be used better elsewhere, and the high wages of a prostitute can be taxed. Whether or not a prostitute's work demands talent or not is a moot point but it definitely doesn't need an education and some of them get paid more than lawyers and doctors.

And the bottom line is that prostitution is not much different than all the other demeaning acts people do to themselves, many of them having to do with cheap sex. Why are we bothering with this one and not the others?

So you have the 'demeaning effect' argument. You have the devaluation of sex and the need for modesty and values arguments. But unless you are sensitive to these issues, and most people aren't, the pros for legalizing prostitution far outweigh the cons and are much more practical. It's just another legal Prohibition, only for sex instead of alcohol.

You can say this will only encourage many more women to whore themselves, but that's only wrong if you go on the assumption that prostitution is wrong. What's really wrong with it? Have you ever really thought about it? Your parents' values aren't going to convince anyone. Your inhibitions, guilt, social imprints or feelings of cheapness aren't going to work either. Besides, since when is it the job of the police force to enforce 'harmless' morality issues?

And if one day you find yourself poor, having to support children, pressured by solicitations and the offer of $500 for 20 minutes work, are you so sure you won't give in? Are you sure you have figured it all out?

Sexy

Today I shall attempt to tackle a tricky word: Modesty.

Just the word itself is enough to raise quizzical eyebrows and threaten to automatically label me a closed-minded prude, an old-fashioned fool. But you are all modest prudes at heart without even knowing it. Let me explain:

First of all, have you ever stopped to figure out what exactly is wrong with infidelity? A man has a fling with a waitress, he comes home to his wife whom he still loves, he stays with his family, makes love to his wife... exactly what did he do wrong? Why such intense feelings when a cheating spouse is discovered?

Don't give me pat answers like dishonesty & trust, lack of commitment, marriage vows, etc. If he had told the truth before and after, it would still bother you, and no commitments have been broken either. Why these feelings of betrayal and cheapness? What exactly did he betray? Why is an unfaithful woman an instant slut? Why can't you go to bed with a spouse who has cheated on you? Take a minute...

Before we get to the answer, I want to discuss an even quainter word that is guaranteed to make you scoff: Holiness. The source definition of the word actually isn't mystical or even 'spiritual'. The meaning of the word is simply: something that is made exclusive for a specific purpose. If a woman dedicates herself exclusively to a man, she is holy. If a basket of fruits is set aside for God, it is holy. And on the other side of the coin, if a prostitute dedicates herself to sex, she is holy as well (but in a perverse way). I'm not making this up, read the original bible.

What's the connection? Modesty is the prerequisite. It is the ability to keep intimate things private, to keep private things hidden, and to expose only what is necessary in the appropriate circumstances so that it is made special, dedicated, and reserved. Intimacy, privacy, exclusivity, holiness, or however you want to call it, is what gives things power. Any person serious about witchcraft knows that to reveal a spell is to dispel its power.

Modesty does not only apply to women who wear see-through dresses, but also to men, to family matters, to sexual tastes, to all private and intimate things, to matters between friends, to attention grabbers, etc. Jerry Springer doesn't feel nasty because of the subject matter, but because of the slutty way in which they reveal their secrets and private lives on TV.

When a woman has an affair, her sex becomes cheap, non-exclusive, immodest, unholy, impotent, and therefore unwanted. When a woman goes out in a revealing dress and the husband becomes jealous, it is for a good reason, no matter how over-possessive or irrational he seems. When a man reveals his sexual habits to his friend and his wife feels betrayed and angry, it is also for the same reason.

Indeed, you all want holiness in your lives and didn't even know it. It is, after all, very basic.

In addition, modesty is what makes things more valued, more exciting, more sexy. You can praise mini-skirts and tight outfits all you like, but the fact remains that you would find it infinitely more exciting to undress a prude.

There was this orthodox Jew on a bus one day. When a girl in a mini-skirt sat down next to him he immediately moved to another seat. The guys on the bus laughed at him for his over-sensitivity and inability to handle a semi-naked girl. He told them 'you are blind men who boast that they can look at the sun'.

Modesty is the one chance you have to keep sex exciting after 30 years of marriage. Modesty is what makes your wife's thigh and your husband's chest special. If the whole world sees it, or even if you see it day after day, then what's the big deal? It has lost its power.

If you think about it, you'll find that the only difference between wearing a mini-skirt and cheating on your husband is quantitative, not qualitative. You're just not sensitive anymore. You lost your power and made everyone blind.

The next logical step is that sex won't be so exciting anymore, and cheating will be socially acceptable. Sound familiar?

What a waste. We could have had so much fun.

Feelings

Stop me if you heard this one: A girl says she doesn't have sex on the first date or week of early relationship, then she jumps in bed with the next guy she meets almost instantly. Or how about the rule 'I will only sleep with a man I love', or 'I will never date my co-worker or friend's ex-boyfriend', or 'I will not go to a man's house until after a few weeks of a relationship', or 'I want it to be right the first time', etc etc...

Back in the dark ages, I used to respect some of these wet blankets of presumed modesty and actually liked a woman with some so-called morals. That is, until I found out they were ad-hoc excuses attempting to appeal to my sense of logic and structure, while the truth was that I just didn't make her feel right. And oh, there are so many ways to make a woman feel right. What a fool I was.

Of course most men have no desire for such quaint ideas as morals and, to the noble goal of getting into another pair of panties, the unenlightened ones actually argue with things like 'but you know me for more than two weeks already!'...and other such feeble arrows of proud male logic.

But how do you expect anyone to respect these rules when they have no absolute ground to stand on, and, perhaps more importantly, you don't abide by them yourselves? I'm sorry, but the world does not revolve around your little palpitating orbs of emotions.

And now that the female gender is outspoken about its desires and feelings, what with all the TV shows, movies and open forums, you had better shape up because now that we know you better, we're out to manipulate you even more. And although most men are too dumb to leverage or even understand this new widespread knowledge, for every dumb man there is a dumber or younger girl out there who is more malleable.

You were probably better off being 'mysterious' and quiet.

As an aside, men, as usual, are much simpler: As soon as they get an erection, any rule that they may have created in a New Year resolution spirit or post-coital nobility is usually thrown out the window. You know what? Men feel cheap after cheap sex as well, they just don't care, or they repress it with beer, bravado, the next cheap sexual adventure and by blaming it on the 'slut' they slept with. But lets go back to discussing you women...

The ironic thing is that your feelings and intuitions are often very well-based in practicality and truth, but this same power of yours undermines itself when lacking in ballast of another nature. How often have you done something that felt right, then regretted it aftewards? How often has a manipulative man made you feel foolish? How often have you been blinded by your own desires?

So here is my advise to you airheaded women: First, learn how to express your feelings in a language that won't make you look fickle and foolish (in other words, don't make up rules you don't intend to keep). Second, learn to trust, question and analyze your feelings better so that you aren't swayed back and forth like a dithering swan in a ballet. Third, find some solid, qualified, logical argument for your justified feelings that isn't based only on a flutter of your heart so that your man will be able to respect and understand your needs instead of toying with them.

Until then, I will manipulate you as necessary because you obviously don't know any better.

Strip!

You, the anonymous female reading this... what would you say if I asked you to get naked and show me your body or panties? What if I brought in a few perverts off the street to gawk at your nipples? Would that make it better? What if I paid you for this lovely show so we can all have some cheap entertainment next time we get horny?

Still no? Then here is my last offer: How about I bring in a few million of these men, I make you appear naked as part of a story, declare it an art film and aim a camera at you?

Considering the amount of movies, porn, theatre, sculptures, photography, advertisements, other forms of art and the sheer amount of nudity in all of these, I wouldn't be surprised if every third or fourth female that would slap me for asking to see her naked form had actually posed semi-naked or displayed her breasts for me on some stage or another. And even if I exaggerate, I can't help but wonder when I see a woman's behaviour in front of a camera...

Go figure.