You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘liberals’ category.

I’m very happy to see some gains for Dylan Farrow.

(“The low buzz of controversy that’s hummed beneath the filmmaker’s career for 25 years is becoming a roar.”)

As I have written here before, I believe her. And more people do too now, and the awareness of her case and story and the problems regarding the problematic investigations, the disappearance of evidence, the behind-the-scenes manipulations by Woody, and the fact that she was wrongly disbelieved simply because Allen is one of the biggest names in Hollywood is all being rethinked by some people, who are also asking themselves if she isn’t telling the truth and going up against an enormously powerful but nevertheless guilty pervert.

Dylan Farrow on speaking out against Woody Allen: “I thought things would change”

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/7/16859962/dylan-farrow-woody-allen-golden-globes-2018-metoo-timesup

She recently tweeted: It’s Sunday. Four years ago, at the Globes in 2014, Woody Allen was awarded the Cecil B. DeMille award for lifetime achievement. Four years ago I decided enough was enough and wrote an open letter detailing the abuse I sustained at the hands of Woody Allen. /1 I thought it would make a difference. I thought things would change. I learned quickly (and painfully) that my optimism was misplaced. His time wasn’t up. /2

Dylan Farrow, along with her brother Ronan, has continued to speak out against Allen, most recently in a December 7 LA Times op-ed entitled “Why has the #MeToo revolution spared Woody Allen?”

=========================

You can see that this is a very divisive case that polarizes people just by reading the comments to every article that comes out on her case. Vox had a very good article with a long recap and recent developments on people’s perceptions of the case:

Why Woody Allen hasn’t been toppled by the #MeToo reckoning — yet

One of the reasons that people are easily polarized, and that the above article doesn’t mention is that the overwhelming majority of the people are never going to read in-depth all that happened with the case – all the documents, all the testimonies published, all the articles, all the comments, etc. And this makes a huge difference. If you just read one or two articles – which is the most most people will ever do – there is so little information. It’s like a jury that doesn’t sit through an entire trial, but just is given a few paragraphs of information and is then asked to make a decision. Of course, it’s going to be biased or a big guess – even if in the right direction.

======================

“Dylan linked her argument to the way that Weinstein and other powerful sexual assaulters in Hollywood had been protected:”

Although the culture seems to be shifting rapidly, my allegation is apparently still just too complicated, too difficult, too “dangerous,” to use Lively’s term, to confront.

The truth is hard to deny but easy to ignore. It breaks my heart when women and men I admire work with Allen, then refuse to answer questions about it. It meant the world to me when Ellen Page said she regretted working with Allen, and when actresses Jessica Chastain and Susan Sarandon told the world why they never would.

It isn’t just power that allows men accused of sexual abuse to keep their careers and their secrets. It is also our collective choice to see simple situations as complicated and obvious conclusions as a matter of “who can say”? The system worked for Harvey Weinstein for decades. It works for Woody Allen still.

====================

Indeed. Many people who say they are against child abuse and sexual violence are in actuality, frauds. They are never taken to task on their beliefs and attitudes that support these violence systems.

 

Advertisements

Amazingly someone has – for the first time that I am aware at least – written an article about how sexually violent homosexual and bisexual pigs are  that has been published in a major paper -and this, in a “gay bar – that is, a bar for turds of men who have a perverted attraction to other men.

========================

How does Harvey Weinstein happen? Visit a gay bar with me.

Take a trip with me. Imagine being gay, or queer, at a club, or a bar, with the lights turned down, the fog machines blowing. It’s around midnight. People are drunk or getting there. The groping starts. Shirts come off. Hands trace down backs and starts cupping butt cheeks.

Rarely is consent obtained or given beforehand. Occasionally crotches are groped. Occasionally quite aggressively. Some people let it happen. Some welcome it. Sometimes a joke is uttered by one of the parties: “Haha, I can’t help myself.” And sometimes people pull away. Sometimes they slap hands away. Sometimes friends step in.

But almost never are there consequences for this. There are no fights. No complaints to bouncers or a security guard. I have never seen anyone get kicked out of a bar for being too handsy. The same people are there, the next week, testing boundaries, stepping up the ladder of predatory behavior.

Marc Ambinder is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors and journalist-in-residence at the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania.

=======================

See? Normal for garbage of people. Normal for liberals. Normal for turds of LGBT people.

And true – I have never seen any complaints. How deformed must be the mind of a person for them to think this is normal? Well, once a person thinks homosexuality is normal, notice that thinking assault and harassment and violence are normal are just around the corner, if they weren’t there to begin with and the basis for them thinking that so many other perversions are normal.

I’ve had the disgusting personal experience of talking to a POS of a liberal woman – the mother of an 18 yr old (if I remember correctly) who took her son to a “gay bar,” since she loves “gays” and thinks “gay bars” are fun, and as they were entering the bar, a gay pig grabbed her son’s head forcefully and violently smacked his lips on the teen’s lips – right in front of her. She just laughed completely – and told her son “not to be upset” because these were “just gays being gays”. And she continued laughing recalling the whole episode.

How demented is that? I was so shocked and disgusted I couldn’t even speak. What was I going to say? If I had opened my mouth I would have attacked that woman in so many ways…

But for a pervert, nothing is perverted – everything is normal. The very own mother witnesses her son being assaulted by a gay pig and she stands there laughing. Now that’s a liberal for you.

These people are like a cancer in society.

 

Well, one good thing coming out of the Weinstein scandal + metoo + Hollywood/other industries harassment scandal is that some people started investigating homosexual/bisexual pigs – at least when the perp is ultra famous – such as Kevin Spacey.

And now here is another one:

Male Models Say Mario Testino and Bruce Weber Sexually Exploited Them

New York Times article – they seem to have talked to a lot of people. The reported testimonies sound credible. And additional factor going in the direction of credible is the NYT itself – I mean you cannot get more homosexual fanatic than this crap of a newspaper.

“The men recalled, with remarkable consistency, private sessions with Mr. Weber in which he asked them to undress and led them through breathing and “energy” exercises. Models were asked to breathe and to touch both themselves and Mr. Weber, moving their hands wherever they felt their “energy.” Often, Mr. Weber guided their hands with his own.”

“I remember him putting his fingers in my mouth, and him grabbing my privates,” said the model Robyn Sinclair. “We never had sex or anything, but a lot of things happened. A lot of touching. A lot of molestation.”

After Weinstein Scandal, a Plan to Protect Models OCT. 23, 2017
In accounts going back to the mid-1990s, 13 male assistants and models who have worked with the photographer Mario Testino, a favorite of the English royal family and Vogue, told The Times that he subjected them to sexual advances that in some cases included groping and masturbation.

+

“He was a sexual predator,” said Ryan Locke, who succeeded Mr. Fedele with Gucci.

Mr. Locke said that when he told other models that he was going to meet Mr. Testino, “everyone started making these jokes — they said he was notorious, and ‘tighten your belt.’”

==============

And one thing to note here is how liberals – who have the mind of pigs regarding sexuality – are all so cozy with sexual harassment and assault. But what are they going to think if they think homosexuality and porn and promiscuity and prostitution are normal? Instead of being disgusted with all these things plus the sexual harassment – they joke and laugh.

And this is why I think it’s important for people to take note that thinking that homosexuality is normal is always part of a larger package of an ideology that supports and facilitates sexual violence and harassment.

==============

“Former assistants said that Mr. Testino had a pattern of hiring young, usually heterosexual men and subjecting them to increasingly aggressive advances.”

===============

See what turds of people homosexuals and bisexuals are? They love perversity and demeaning people and destroying anything that is healthy about sex.

““He shuts the door and locks it. Then he crawls on the bed, climbs on top of me and says, ‘I’m the girl, you’re the boy.’ I went at him, like, you better get away. I threw the towel on him, put my clothes on and walked out,” Mr. Locke said.”

““I was often made to feel uncomfortable on shoots, asked to massage Mario in front of other assistants, models and fashion editors.”

“One night after a dinner, Mr. Tillman said the photographer grabbed him on the street and tried to kiss him. A few weeks later, while on a business trip, Mr. Tillman met Mr. Testino in his hotel room. Mr. Testino demanded that the assistant roll him a joint, then threw him down on a bed, climbed on top of him and pinned down his arms, Mr. Tillman said. Mr. Testino’s brother came into the room and made the photographer get off Mr. Tillman.” “I was scared,” he said of the hotel room experience. “I didn’t know what was going to happen.”

Taber, a model who worked with Mr. Testino for much of the late ’90s and early 2000s (he used only his first name professionally), described Mr. Testino as a friend until he stuck his hand down the back of Taber’s pants, and showed up at his hotel room asking for sex. “He was a mentor who took it a step too far,” he said.

“Sexual harassment was a constant reality,” said Roman Barrett, an assistant to Mr. Testino in the late ’90s who said the photographer rubbed up against his leg with an erection and masturbated in front of him.

“He misbehaved in hotel rooms, the backs of cars and on first-class flights,” he said. “Then things would go back to normal, and that made you feel gaslighted.”

Another assistant to Mr. Testino, a decade later, said he had his pants pulled down and buttocks fondled while on the job. Yet another said that Mr. Testino masturbated on him during a business trip. Both were granted anonymity because they feared career repercussions.

Even those who worked for Mr. Testino without experiencing the most direct harassment were affected. “I saw him with his hands down people’s pants at least 10 times,” said Thomas Hargreave, a shoot producer who worked frequently with Mr. Testino between 2008 and 2016. “Mario behaved often as if it was all a big joke. But it wasn’t funny. And the guys being placed in these situations wouldn’t know how to react. They would look at me, like, ‘What’s going on? How do I deal with this?’ It was terrible.”

============================

I think that the last part also strikes at one of the horrible aspects of sexual harassment. It can be so profoundly damaging and disconcerting at the psycho-emotional level, even though in many situations, there is no physical violence. And this is something people must take note of.

The article also talks about that many victims are afraid to come forward because they fear retaliation. Which is why sexual harassment is such a cancer in society. Because powerful people almost always have the power to retaliate against victims who come forward.

And now for the million dollar question – how many liberals are going to shun this homosexual POS now that he has been denounced? My bet is on three. The remaining hundreds of millions of homosexual-loving pigs will continue kissing his behind.

I had stopped blogging, but I wanted to break the “fast” due to the Weinstein scandal.

This was my first reaction when the scandal broke: I’m very happy with it! I wake up with a smile on my face to read the articles and out-pour of testimonies and accusations and revelations about the rot of sexual harassment and violence in Hollywood and in society in general. Not to mention that most or all perpetrators involved so far in the Weinstein scandal are, wait for it, liberals!

You know, the people who think homosexuality, pornography, and promiscuity are normal – and who show themselves to be the personification of evil when it comes to their ethics and greed and immorality.

And not only that, these are the people who will malign to death any social conservative. We all know that if I applied for a job with these garbage of liberals, whether they are the victims or the perpetrators, and I disclosed my ethical and healthy views against homosexuality, pornography, and promiscuity, they would brand me a “bigot” and a “hater” and would deny me the job, preferring to give it instead to someone who has the same sexual sewer in their mind as they do.

And what is the result?

Violence. A society where homosexuality, porn, and promiscuity have been normalized cannot be anything else than a very sexually violent society.

Continue shining the light on the violent liberal sewer that is Hollywood. Including the pedophilia problem.

I haven’t seen the garbage of people who think homosexuality is normal demand answers from Milo on this: Which pedophiles did Milo expose? What are their full names? And what is the full name of the priest he says abused him? Let’s hear the stories.

Here’s betting a hundred quid, as they say over the pond, that no names will ever be produced, nothing that could identify anyone. Just totally made-up claims.

BTW, The Federalist, of all people!, actually published a good article, “good” as far as today’s sick American society standard goes, about homosexuality and child/teen abuse.

Excerpts:

“In the gay world,” Milo said later, “some of the most important, enriching and incredibly, you know, life-affirming, important, shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys.” “Provided they’re consensual,” he added, “provided they’re consensual.”

During a different interview, with Joe Rogan, Milo talked approvingly of an alleged sexual encounter he had with a priest when Milo was around 14 years old. Milo also described attending Hollywood “boat parties” and “house parties,” where he saw things that “beggar belief.” As Milo put it: “some of the boys at [these parties] were very young. Very young.” Later, he reiterated for the third time: “There were some very young boys around at that time.” In spite of Rogan’s prompting, Milo refused to name anyone at these parties.

But wait: the perversity does not stop there. In a 2006 audio clip that resurfaced in the midst of the Milo debacle, Star Trek alumnus and liberal activist George Takei, who, like Milo, is gay, spoke fondly with radio host Howard Stern (and co-host Robin Quivers) about his sexual experience as a 13-year-old boy with an “eighteen or nineteen” year-old camp counselor.

At one point Stern asked Takei: “Were you molested in a sense, because you were 13?” Takei replied: “No, no…I thought he was pretty attractive.” Stern and Quivers seem captivated and delighted by the story. Quivers prompts Takei for details—“Ahh! Was he gazing into your eyes the whole time? Was he saying anything?”—while Stern cracks wise: “Who wants a hand job without kissing?” Takei describes the experience: “It was both wonderful and scary and kind of intimidating, and delightful.”

Reflect on that for a moment: two adults were listening to a third adult describe an instance of genuine child sexual abuse, and were both happy and jocular about it.

There are two deeply appalling aspects to these sordid interviews. The first is the possibility that, as Milo put it, sexual relationships between young boys and adult gay men occur “very often.” At the Huffington Post last week, “gay conservative” Chad Felix Greene described his own experiences in this regard, having his first sexual encounters with adult men at age 14. As Greene put it, reflecting on the negative effect such behavior has had on his life and the need to stop this “generational pattern of abuse”: “As much as the LGBT world seems to ignore [older gay men having sex with young teenage boys], it seems fairly universal and unfortunately not time-bound to a period when young gay men had fewer options.”

Nevertheless, these revelations are unnerving and profoundly troubling, and the implications of these revelations are terrible, especially combined with many years of research showing disproportionately high rates of child sexual abuse against young gay males. Should we not consider the possibility that something both brutal and endemic is going on here, and that we’re simply ignoring it?

Yet there is another, even more troubling idea at work here: the possibility that these stories have been around for a long time, that many people have known about them for a long time, yet nobody has done anything about it, or even cared.

Consider: Milo’s interview with Rogan took place in September 2015, nearly 17 months ago. His statements on the livestream occurred more than a year ago, in January 2016. Yet his remarks and beliefs did not come to wide attention or constitute a scandal until very recently, when they were publicized by a conservative group opposed to his appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

If a grown male celebrity had spoken approvingly of having sex with 13-year-old girls, including having attended a party where “very young girls” were being used for sex, the reaction would have been swift and ruthless. It would not have taken the man in question more than a year to suffer any consequences, as it did for Milo.

Takei’s own tacit approval of child sex, meanwhile, has been on record for more than a decade, and he has suffered no professional or personal fallout for it.

Author: Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at The Federalist. He currently runs the blog Trial of the Century, and lives in Virginia.

 

 

Well, you know something is official if it happens on Facebook. And so here it is: the Bible has been declared hate speech and banned from Facebook – at least temporarily.

=================

Facebook Suspends Christian Homeschool Mom’s Account Over Posts Citing Bible on Homosexuality

Elizabeth Johnston, an Ohio homeschooling mother of 10 who runs the popular conservative blog “The Activist Mommy,” told The Christian Post on Tuesday that Facebook suspended her account earlier this month because she wrote about how Leviticus condemns homosexuality as “detestable” and an “abomination.”

Johnston said the comment in question was posted over six months ago in a long thread of comments that was in response to another Facebook user who claimed that Christians are hypocrites for condemning homosexuality but being willing to eat shellfish and pork.

The post was removed on Feb. 9 and Johnston’s public “The Activist Mommy” Facebook page, which has over 76,000 followers, was frozen for a period of three days. She was alerted that her comment on homosexuality was removed because “it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards.”

“Someone had commented underneath one of my videos and were commenting under the thread and said something about how Old Testament law prohibits the eating of pork — one of the homosexuals’ favorite arguments to make. I responded with just scriptural commentary and that is considered ‘hate speech’ by Facebook,” Johnston explained. “It was just very intellectual and it was just a commentary on what the Bible says. There was no name calling or anything like that.”

After her account was unfrozen on Feb. 12, Johnston said that she re-posted her thoughts on the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality only to have Facebook remove the post again and freeze her account for an additional seven days.

“Last Sunday, I posted something about the ban, explaining to my followers where I had been the last three days and reposted the screenshot and wrote #FacebookCensorship,” Johnston said. “That ticked them off and they didn’t like that at all. It was going viral. Just within a few hours, they had banned me again and they were going to make it more painful.”
Facebook has yet to provide a concrete reason as for why Johnston’s posts were removed and her account was suspended. But the organization’s community standards explain that Facebook removes various forms of “hate speech” — a term LGBT activists have used to label traditional biblical teachings on homosexuality.

The community standards state: “Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their: race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, or gender identity, or serious disabilities or diseases.”

Johnston’s post only cited Scripture and did not directly attack any person.

The Ohio mother contended that with the way the Facebook algorithm is set up is that all that is needed for her account to be frozen is for liberal trolls and LGBT activists to report her account.

This is not the first time that Facebook has tried to censor somebody who posted about their opposition to the LGBT movement.

Well. It was amazing. It was mind-blowing. Nobody thought it could happen. Yet he pulled it off.

What a lesson, what a beautiful example of “nothing is impossible”.

I went to bed early on Tuesday – why torture oneself with the slow incoming counting of a Clinton win? – and fully prepared for the awful news of Hillary’s win the next morning, already detaching myself from the whole election affair. Life goes on and all that. Millions of errands and things to do the next morning, the election will be over, back to the normal drudgery of everyday life, let’s think about other things already.

Of course, when I got up the next morning, I went to check the news for the awful acknowledgement of Hillary’s win and just to see how bad it had been.

And then I was speechless. Stunned. Overjoyed.

And even though the witch keeps flying around, circling on her broom, still meddling obviously in the high circles of power that she has attained, she lost.

She lost like no one could, crashing from the highest pedestal that she had built for herself, with her mountains of lies and all that corrupt money the Clinton crime syndicate has amassed.

And every little tiny tinsy bit of news about her loss, her disappointment, the knife in her stomach, her resounding vertical crash was just savored. How it came from nowhere and just whipped her repugnant smug face. A lifetime of grotesque crimes, all that highest level corruption, a billion thrown to oil that horrible Hillary electing machine, and Trump just grabbed the win right out of her slimy hard clutching hands. Without much effort, it can also be added.

Trump was very smart – we all have to hand it to him. Talking to millions of dumb Americans, selfish and low-info as they are, takes talent. I never thought he had it, but he does.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. Trump means more of the same horrible criminal US of A – wars, torture, horrendous foreign policy, arms sales to barbarians abroad to commit relentless repression and mass murder, just to mention a few of the gravest international issues. He is not ethical and his number one priority is himself. I think he is poised to become richer than the Bushes and the Clintons. Only time will tell.

But he won. And that means Hillary lost. Her only chance and he smashed it.

And that is a lesson.

I’m still savoring that she lost her only chance and I’ll be savoring it for some time. What she most wanted and No. You can’t have it. Hard to know how many people the Clintons have gotten rid of, how many careers they have destroyed, how many people in Haiti are suffering because the Clintons robbed them of their resources (including Hillary’s brother and that Haitian gold mine plunder of his), how many masses of human beings have been murdered or starved because of the arms sales and foreign policies and deals orchestrated by Bill and Hillary, but she lost. In this world without justice, this is about the only thing we can get.

We’ll take it and savor it.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Of course, everyone could have overestimated Sanders as a leader that stands firm, myself included. Of course, he could have just sold out and merely folded to Clinton after working his behind off competing against her, not only abandoning his supporters and most things he fought for, but literally throwing them all under the Hillary neocon Wall Street bus. Of course, this election could have been just a game to him, a nice little ego trip, a symbolic medal for all the years he has fought for his ideals as a minority in Congress. Finally public acknowledgement and support – a chance to be heard and to lead. A chance that came to what still feels like a very abrupt end today.

But why am I getting the feeling, now, after all this, after nominating Hillary, that he is up to something?

Wishful thinking? Definitely. But he might know something he ain’t telling. Just setting it up for now. I turned off youtube in the middle of the DNC roll call today because it was just too awful to watch. It was about 1100 votes to 700 then, Hillary-Sanders. And yet Sanders wanted the roll call. He set his foot down to have it happen today. He also organized with his brother, of his utmost trust and confidence, for the latter to nominate him. Then, after all this, he hands it over to Hillary, folding.

Now it had occurred to me in the past the simple fact that if anything were to happen to Hillary, it’s him for the Dems. Anything as in an indictment or wikileaks. With the Clintons having bought off the Justice System and the FBI, wikileaks is all that’s left.

And now I am getting the feeling that Sanders’ plan isn’t just to ride off into the sunset, head sunken, and write his little book on his (defeated and deflated) revolution, as he has announced. He looked almost ebullient as he announced his nomination of Clinton.  Does that make any sense at all? What’s all the happiness about, just the symbolic fact that he still got many delegate votes?

For the life of me, I can’t find the final tally of the DNC’s roll call today anywhere on the Net. I suppose tomorrow it will be easier.

To finish, then, are all these little tidbits and clues about Sanders just mirages in the current political wasteland of American politics? Was Sanders bought off, did he quit, fold, or is something actually up?

=================

Updated August 1st, 2016:

OK, so I read that Sanders didn’t give Hillary his database of millions of supporters! And that he hasn’t denied he might run for president in 2020. Aha. So I think that’s his game. Fold now to work the bases so that he can run in 2020.

In any case, shameful. He could have run now. It doesn’t do much, but he’s helping Canova beat Debbie in Florida. Ha.

 

 

 

This is a really smart comment:

The man made an arena full of Republicans stand up and cheer as he pledged to protect the LGBTQ community.
The Republican party voted for a former Democrat liberal businesses man as their candidate.And the Democratic party picked a neo con big business backed hawk.

Indeed – and that just goes to show what a failure the US is as a country and as a political system. But you must be getting tired of hearing me saying it. Still, I find it rather bizarre. So again it’s this weird center that congregates most of the American voting public. Whether it’s more neocon (Hillary) or more anti-globalist but pro-military (Trump), you see that all the candidates that were very left on geopolitics/Wall Street (Bernie and Stein)  or very right on culture war issues (Cruz, Carson, Rubio, etc.) lost badly.

Although Pence is really conservative and Kaine is somewhat conservative.

My comment left at Lionel Media’s video on Trump’s 60 minute interview:

Lionel is to his stupid support of LGBT “rights” what Hillary is to Wall Street and war. Shills who don’t have any decency or knowledge about what is a world with human rights. Just as we can’t expect Hillary to be honest about the damage that her agenda brings, we can’t expect Lionel to realize the problems with his homosexual agenda. He mentions he deplores the fact that today language has become crude and vulgar, along with the ideas expressed (or maybe he’s jumped on the “vulgarity is OK” bandwagon) – and who do we have to thank for that? Liberals (which includes the LGBT) – the people normalizing homosexuality, porn, and promiscuity, abortion on demand, adultery, and who are responsible for a lot of sexual harassment and sexual violence in society – as it couldn’t be otherwise.

In an exchange with a liberal troll the other day, he kept asking why Christians “hate women” because of the several passages in the Bible where women are mistreated, raped, etc. And I told him his question was rich given it came from a liberal that supports pornography (and I’m sure many more evil things), since there is nothing that contains more material that degrades and does violence to women than porn. Not just to women, because it’s one of the main venues for homosexual pigs to present themselves. The Bible is particularly tame compared to the extreme debasing of sex and women that all kinds of porn present. In short, that’s what the two sides of American society give us – either they are war perverts or sexual perverts – or both, such as the Clintons and also Trump, although I do agree with Lionel that Trump seems like a Clinton lite. My prediction is he will act quite similarly to Clinton if elected though.

All these idiots who are saying, “We know how repugnant Clinton is, but we don’t know what Trump will be like” are leading themselves into playing the role of Charlie Brown in Lucy holds the football.

And to this comment from One Man 1970:

This whole show (our country) ..has completely gone off the rails…
I agree – and a testament to the failure of the US public education system. It produces a country of war and sexual perverts who want to shove their wars, porn, and homosexuality agenda of death and destruction wherever they go.

 

 

From prostitution (and porn and homosexuality) promoter magazine Vanity Fair: an article promoting prostitution for young people – especially with older adults. Surprise.

Daddies, “Dates,” and the Girlfriend Experience: Welcome to the New Prostitution Economy

A growing number of young people are selling their bodies online to pay student loans, make the rent, or afford designer labels. Is it just an unorthodox way to make ends meet or a new kind of exploitation? Nancy Jo Sales investigates.

Excerpts:

“Basically every gay dude I know is on Seeking Arrangement,” says Christopher, 23, a Los Angeles film editor. “And there are so many rent boys,” or young gay men who find sex-work opportunities on sites like RentBoy, which was busted and shut down in 2015 by Homeland Security for facilitating prostitution. “Now people just go on RentMen,” says Christopher.

“We talked a lot about agency” when conceiving The Girlfriend Experience, says producer Steven Soderbergh (who directed a movie of the same name in 2009), “and the idea that you have this young woman who is going into the workforce and ends up in the sex-work industry, where she feels she has more control and is respected more than she is at her day job,” at a law firm.

[So since prostitution is a horrendous kind of activity – this really is just underscores how disgusting law firms in a grotesque capitalist society like the US are! ]

Meanwhile, sugaring has its own extensive community online—also known as “the sugar bowl”—replete with Web sites and blogs. On Tumblr, babies exchange tips on the best sugaring sites and how much to charge. They post triumphant pictures of wads of cash, designer shoes, and bags.

======end======

Really – designer shoes and bags. These young women are debasing themselves and sexuality for some designer shoes and bags – and they call this agency. They couldn’t be more daft, they couldn’t have more of a perverted understanding of what’s important in life and in themselves, they couldn’t be cheaper – and here they are desperate, desperate for some crap with some label on it. Just to feel valued in the grotesque peer environment they live in.

Agency for patriarchal sluts is like this. As I would say to them – patriarchy has you where they want you. Imagine this! Women brain-washed to prostitute themselves to men (who can care less about them and who have a deformed view of relationships and sex) and who tell themselves this is agency – and feminism. Agency starts with the capability to think critically and to have a healthy mindset. No ability to think – no agency. Just another brainwashed slut serving patriarchy (or its homosexual variant). Because you know what garbage of people LGBTs are.

*-*-*

On Facebook, there are private pages where babies find support for their endeavors as well. On one, members proudly call themselves “hos” (sometimes “heaux”) and post coquettish selfies, dressed up for “dates.” They offer information on how to avoid law enforcement and what they carry to protect themselves (knives, box cutters, pepper spray). They give advice on how to alleviate the pain of bruises from overzealous spanking and what to do when “scammers” refuse to pay. They ask questions: “How do you go about getting started in sex work? I’m honestly so broke.”

And here is where really begins to intrude the “sex work is just another kind of work” lies. Tips on how to protect themselves from violence? What for? Could it be because they are putting themselves at risk by being alone with some grotesque stranger? Tips for “alleviating the pain of bruises”? Bruises?

“Agency” for the most ideologically enslaved women is like this: bruises. Knives. Calling themselves “hos”. Look at the respect, the freedom, the “agency”.

Throughout this article, I also wondered how much of it was made up. Because you know, Vanity Fair. In any case, they tell us this about the profile of some of these young people:

They were squeezed by college tuition, crushed by student loans and the high cost of living. Many of their parents were middle- or upper-middle-class people who had nothing to spare for their children, derailed by the economic downturn themselves. And so they did “cake sitting”—a specialty service for a fetish that craves just what it says—or stripping or Webcamming or sugaring. Some beat people up in professional “dungeons”; others did “scat play,” involving sex with feces. They did what they felt they had to do to pay their bills.

Is this a complete fabrication from Vanity Fair? I mean, their description doesn’t seem to make any sense. If the parents are upper middle class, how can they have nothing to spare for their kids? The only way I see that happening is if the parents hate their own children, and are stingy – which happens with a certain frequency – but there’s no mention of that. They speak of upper middle class families as if they were living under a bridge.

One more:

“Being in the L.A. atmosphere, and at the age of 16 or 17 going out in nightlife—it’s all very based on appearance,” Alisa says. “Out here, as long as you’re wearing Saint Laurent and the newest items, that’s all people care about, so my friends and I were obsessed with fashion. I think with our generation, Instagram also has a lot to do with it—people are constantly posting what they have.” She’s explaining that she became a sugar baby in order to buy luxury goods.

You see why Fidel Castro is cool? Because he has a vision for young people to become doctors, engineers, social workers, to build a society together. I’m dying to go to Cuba to see “sur place” what is it like. Just how bad are the problems? Just how much have they been able to achieve despite the US having done everything to destroy them?

This is what the US has to offer to the world: a society of prostitutes and johns – with girls and boys who do it so they can have some designer bag! It’s enough to make you weep. But for Americans, it’s normal! And it wasn’t like that a couple of generations ago – but things are changing. For the worse.

And look at all that agency here:

“I haven’t done it [prostitution] in a really long time,” she says, “solely because of how it made me feel. Like it just makes you feel worthless ‘cause they don’t pay attention to your brain, they don’t care what you have to say. They just care that you’re attractive and you’re listening to them. I don’t want to ever have to look back and think, like, I made it to this point just because I used my body to get there.”

Huhoh!  Couldn’t get more patriarchal than that, could it? And capitalist.

And look at the heaps of “feminism” here:

Jenna says that a friend of hers was sexually assaulted by a man she met on a sugaring site. “She didn’t want to report it,” she says, “because she didn’t want her parents to know what she was doing.”

Keeping quiet about being sexually assaulted is so feminist!

And look at how much respect they really get:

But it wasn’t real dating, and after a while it began to bother her, as she realized the men, although “generally nice,” didn’t actually respect her. “I think the sugar daddies just see the sugar babies as whores,” she says. “They would never consider a monogamous relationship with someone who would need to do this to survive. It’s like a class thing. They see you as beneath them, desperate.

No, idiot – prostitution is not dating. And here we can see how these young women have to create a completely fake persona, and can never be themselves – because agency!

Miranda is 22 and has the wavy bobbed hair and clipped mid-Atlantic accent of a 1930s movie star; she grew up in a Texas suburb. “I’ve learned how to look like this, talk like this,” she says. “I work hard at being this,” meaning someone who can charge $700 an hour for sex.

Then she adds:

Now, she says, she has a rotation of three regular “clients”—”a top Austin lawyer, a top architect, and another tech guy,” all of them married. She adds, “Their relationships are not my business.”

Well, I’d be curious if their families felt that way as well. You know, I mentioned this article to some married women I know, and I was surprised they all said they thought the wives of these three guys would certainly not agree if they knew. I rather had imagined them differently. I had imagine their wives to be quite the prostitutes themselves – only they are married to only one  guy. In other words, I imagine them to want the designer bags and shoes – and that they would put up with these men and their affairs and use of prostitutes just so they could live an upper class life.

I can’t know – but there would be nothing better than to throw the names of these guys into the public light and find out. And that goes for all the men and women using these sites. Nothing wrong? Than do it openly.

Lastly – there’s a lot to say about the language used to embellish prostitution and to hide the violence and degradation inherent to it – but the use of the word “daddy” is particularly sick given its incestuous connotation.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: