Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Media's Progressive Goals Ruin Sex Worker Stories

The Miriam Weeks/Belle Knox story has not caused any reflection on the media's part about the widespread availability of pornography and its effects on 21st century sex in America. With her first scene being a rougher scene with a distributer that prides itself on pushing the edge and has nooooo storyline or artistic value, it might be a perfect opportunity for the media to evaluate what has happened to the industry and its wider effects. The only evaluation of porn stories in recent history have been "more women should be watching porn, and not just soft couples porn". It's barbaric porn for all in media land. Was not the whole reason the pornos in the '70s met the Supreme Court's rules of obscenity that they had basic plots for artistic value? The media does not do this because pushing pornography is on their agenda. This behavior colors every article that involes anything, but especially gender relations and sexual topics. An article on prostitution in the New York Observer in January suffers from the same problem as the failed pornography discussion. The article focuses on what the men are looking for and glamourizes the life of an escort. Missing is the breakdown in what a relationship used to provide men, the devolution of modern women and the risks of marriage for men.

Genetic dead ends
The article plays up the johns being classy guys looking for classy experiences. The really handsome lead john in the article doesn't even want to sleep with his escorts most of the time. There is the deliberate use of a married john, "those pesky married men that use hookers, grrr". One john even says "I love you" to an escort, and she says it back. How sweet. The data bit on the escort review site mentions that it gets 350,000 visitors a day, is mostly men between the ages 35 and 55 and men with a median income of $80,000 annually. Guys who make money are the type who would research their hookers. The steady theme is looking for sex without the emotional commitment, the love experience but without the baggage, and escorts who are well read, can cook and are sensual and feminine lure the johns in repeatedly. Men are looking for all around women who won't be high maintenance harpies who change on a whim. This is news to the media.

Nowhere in the article does the writer challenge the men or why the "feeling" is not there in a city (NYC) with millions of single women. If these guys can get any woman they want in a city with millions of women, why are they paying hundreds if not thousands per experience upwards of thousands a year for escorts? Falling birth rate for the West, why not ask financially secure men without kids why they are not thinking about kids and not the "love experience? That growing segment of irreligious that oftentimes dive into hedonistic pleasures today because there is no God and no afterlife so live for now and screw society's future would agree with these guys. Marriage and companionship? Bah, who needs it, and anyway, I can just rent it. The media would never broach the subject of live for today at the expense of societal continuity, since they are actively pushing it.

Little nuggets reveal more to the problem of what modern women provide men in this article. Why are hookers working on their culinary skills and receiving compliments for being engaging listeners? Modern women lack cooking skills and just blabber on with no pause to stop and listen to their men. That complaint is common from men. Women have reduced relationships to keeping men using their multiple orifices and the lure of sex. If relationships are going to boil down to a sexual element with little to no companionship or emotional bonding (that's the Iphone's domain), they why would a man, still expected to pay, shell out money for meals and activities for the possibility of sex if the woman does not have a fickle moment when he can shell out money for a guaranteed attractive woman and know sex is happening. Besides the romanticized experiences of these few johns in the article, the other thousands if not millions of men using escorts are looking for someone who will be attentive to them if only for an hour. On advertisements they call it the king treatment because no one wants to advertise the 1950s housewife treatment your grandmother gave your grandpa. Grandpa walks in the door from a long day of work, gripes about work that your grandmother did not care at all about, and eats a meal cooked for him with his favorite drink in hand. Cooking a meal was a sign of love or care. Your grandmother did not have to, but she did it. How many women today are doing that? It is like the psychiatry patients who talk to shrinks not for therapy or a mental illness but because they think that for forty five minutes someone, anyone, is just listening to them.

There will be no article on the death of 1950s mom, but we get these articles on high end johns and escorts. They cannot mention the decline of home life because they push its breakdown. They also have to avoid the awful bargain marriage can be. The smartest commentary on modern America in the article was not in the article but in the comments. Reader Kevin Michael Reily comments.
If the marriage doesn't work out, the woman gets the house the kids, the car, and alimony. I see all these married men with wives who complain, spend their money and then talk all about what a man has to do for a woman. A lot of American men are "just alimony slaves" who are controlled by their wives. Of course not all marriages are like this but MILLIONS of them are. That is what women fail to accept. The man pays for everything..and all they do is show up. Of course they love this system.
That obvious rules of the game reality was missing in the article. He is right. Broken men screwed over in divorce court number in the millions and dwarf the number of guys using high end escorts. This is a disincentive that men respond to by not marrying or even looking for a long term relationships when they can get sex from many women for free or high class ass for a fee. Michael Strahan's ex accused him of being gay, hitting her and cheating, which made it into the newspapers. She also received $15 mil of his $23 mil in wealth. I am unsure if that included the 50-50 split of their home when it sold for $3.3 million. That was despite a prenup that put 20% of his earnings in a secure account for her. Prenup was tossed. Strahan lost. What wealthy guy wants to walk into that divorce racket? If Strahan cannot protect himself with a prenup, will you? Contracts between consensual adults are the rage, so why not pay a college girl to cary your kid to pay off some of her student loans? The media will not mention the landmine that is family law because it is a system they foster. The divorce fantasy programming they broadcast is constant whether news segments or the latest Julia Roberts movie product. As the commenter said, women get what they want and it is on their whim. In our dark corner of the Internet, we know the game is rigged in their favor with financial rewards even if they are at fault, but this cannot be discussed in broad daylight because more people are noticing and angry.

Funny thing is, they never come out and discuss the idiocy of prostitution's illegal status in comparison to pornography nor other nations' licensing rules. If the media will push Weeks/Knox why not push legalization of prostitution? Safe, legal, rare? Is this the one sexual endeavor that can remain puritan in spirit? It was a national scandal of the week when a Zumba fitness instructor was found to be running a brothel (she was the lone employee) in Maine. Did anyone discuss the stupidity of prostitution laws since the thing that got her jail time was filming men having sex without their knowledge? No. Just tabloid coverage, and the hypocrisy hand wringing as whispers spread of what high profile men in southern Maine might be on the client list. The local NBC weatherman had to make a statement that he was not on the list. No discussion of what is behind the law when a clearly business savvy woman and male partner are running a six figure escort service with no advertising and no harm done to her.

This is another sex positive, pro-sex worker media piece. Like the Weeks/Knox story, the media can dip into the story only where it wants to dig to push the progressive agenda. The Observer can inform us of these Secret Diary of a Call Girl fantasy escorts, who do exist but in small numbers. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by the strippers going the extra mile, meth/crack/coke addicted hookers and foreign women being trafficked around the nation. Stay at a decent hotel in a major metropolitan area, and downstairs in their bar is a pretty girl tapping her foot and nursing a drink who approaches you and comes with her own menu. It's the sexual black market; pure capitalism and growing. A deeper discussion might persuade Americans to legalize prostitution if it meant more resoruces fighting trafficking. Soon to be joining those numbers of escorts are 20-somethings with student loans to pay off but no jobs, redefining the old term white slavery. These top shelf johns are just so romantic and dreamy. They just need a quick fix of a wonderful experience. Don't bother asking what they will do in thirty years. I'm sure retired escorts attend the funerals of their dearest clients. The article can only go so far in discussing why these men seek high end rentals because to do any deeper digging or pontificate on the family law system would be to inflict wounds on the very system the media has enabled.


peterike said...

At bottom, the Progressive Left are really exactly like the Joker in Batman. They just want to burn it all down. It's a death cult worse even then Islam, because at least Muslims destroy for a purpose, however delusional. The Progs destroy just because.

Teh said...

The choices are either have an underclass immiserated by it's own folly or have a new underclass imported by elites, looking for people to feel better than.

Restoring middle-class society through restoring bourgeoisie values? That's been tried once with the victorians. It worked for 50-100 years and then the elites decided to both double down on the liberalism and import massive amounts of NAMs. It's not going to work if tied again.

Anonymous said...

At least the younger progressive leftists are doing it for a reason. Financial ruin will lead to hyperinflation which will wipe away our student loans. They will also wipe away the older generations retirement plans forcing them to rent out their unused rooms in their houses which will drive the rent down for us. So yes young liberals do have a reason for trying to burn it all down.

peterike said...

You can't inject bourgeoisie values into a people that are inherently uncivilized. How many years of black "uplift" have there been? How many trillions spent? And to what end? A relentless, steady decline in the quality of the black population.

The same thing is happening with Mestizos as the hard working first generation is succeeded by the welfare-addled 2nd and 3rd generations. They get poorer and stupider over time.

Even the Asian-invasion, while not as cognitively challenged, brings enormous levels of corruption, deceit, shoddiness, shadiness and numerous other negative genetic attributes not found as widely in whites. To say nothing of bad taste (just take a look at the all appallingly hideous housing the Chinks are building in New York).

You can't maintain a first world nation with third world people, simple as that.

peterike said...

Financial ruin will lead to hyperinflation which will wipe away our student loans.

Be careful what you wish for. In any case, there seem to be rumors floating amongst the young college types that Obama will "forgive" all student loans. I don't see why as it serves him no political purpose, but I can totally see Hillary(!) putting that into her campaign bag of tricks to lock up the young adult vote.

After all, total student loan debt is about a trillion dollars. And really, what's that in the face of constant trillion+ deficits and a multi-trillion $ debt? I mean if you think about it, the bigger the total debt gets, the smaller will be the percentage increase by adding another trillion in loan relief.

And frankly, the government spends money on a lot more stupid and destructive things than freeing up the buying power and lives of a couple of generations of college students.

Mr. Cynical said...

First of all, learn to use fucking grammar... It is "Than", not "then". Second of all, Islam is not a death cult. There are radical Christians, Jews, and even Buddhists. Religion has radicals, no matter what system it is. Besides, it was the Christians, that started mass killings of Muslims, back in the 12th century, and even to the point of suicidal killings. But, I guess your history, won't tell you that.

Big Bill said...

The big problem is the notion of marriage as a "partnership" and of women contributing an equal share.

If she cooks and cleans, she "contributes half".

If she doesn't lift a finger and merely bosses around OTHER women who cook and clean (which her husband pays for) she is ALSO "contributing half".

If you do anything nice for your woman, you just reset the threshold of her "expectations". In short, a present to her "raises her standard of living" and should she leave you, she is entitled to expect that much as a minimum indefinitely into the future.

On the other hand, she wants to be a strong self-assured and self-directed woman, so she wants to be able to get your sperm and make a baby without your meddling ... at least until she and her lesbian lover break up, at which point they will both turn on you to pay your share as the "father" of the child.

The only solution I see is piggybacking off the Jews and Muslims and forcing the family courts to be hands-off on any property and child-support settlement. Set up some alternative tribunal (probably pseudo-religious) when you marry that will decide the merits of the case and the family courts have to respect the decision.

Alternatively, sign a contract with her that will not try to control child support/alimony payments per se, but will require her to pay you damages equal to any amount of money she collects from you (in family court or any other tribunal) in excess of an agreed upon amount. Thus, she can get whatever child support award she wants, but if that amount violates the agreement you had with her, you can sue her to recover the excess as a liquidated damage clause. In short, "feel free to collect whatever you want, baby, but if it exceeds $1000 a month, I am going to collect the difference from you under this contract." Maybe have her sign the agreement with a separate corporation so YOU are not making the claim of excess cash, the corporation is.

After all, just because she gets a divorce doesn't mean that all the contracts she has ever signed with everyone else are null and void, right? If she signed a contract with a car company she is still liable even after divorce. So have her sign an agreement upon marriage with some other entity that will collect the excess cash and return it to you.

We guys are so pussy-whipped that we have not considered all the creative contractual possibilities.

One final note. When you start dating she will probably talk about how she does not want to be "owned by a man".

So you need to lay the foundation (emails, etc.) at the very beginning. "Oh, yeah, baby, I would never want to 'own' you. And I am sure you, as a liberated feminist, would never want to 'own' me. We are going to have a liberated 21st Century relationship. I will never get married unless both parties agree not to 'own' the other person. When I get married my fiancee and I will sign an agreement that will let us preserve our identities and our autonomy forever. Her money will be hers and my money will be mine."

Hell, you an even give her a copy of the contract. In short: "What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine." Believe me, she will love it when you start dating. It will show her how truly "feminist" you are. When you finally propose and she melts into place, she cannot claim you "tricked her" or "sprung it on her" at the last minute. Npe. Instead you get to look hurt and wounded that she "suddenly want to change the rules and 'own' you."

Guys, prep her from thevery beginning that her "ownership" of you (and your "ownership" of her) is not a part of the deal.

Mr. Cynical said...

While blacks were building pyramids, and the "Chinks" were formulating theory, you hold dear to today, what were white people doing? Humping goats, dogs, and other animals, and living in caves. And you say that whites are genetically superior? All humans are equally worthless. And, FYI, there are more whites on welfare, you racist pussy.

Mr. Cynical said...

The Chinese are the oldest civilization, still existing. Europe was 2000 years behind them. Obviously, you have a skewed, racist point of view, and you claim to be intelligent? Your words sound like welfare addled white trash words.

Mr. Cynical said...

Racism at its finest... the words sound like those of uneducated welfare addled white trash, with a superiority complex.

Son of Brock Landers said...

@bigbill - great comment. I do think there will be a rise in "contracts" as men eschew marriage to protect themselves AND women figure out how to get govt benefits but have a husband. Lawyers will figure a response to that market. Fees.

jsl2837 said...

@Mr. Cynical
You should look into the timeline of megalithic construction; which we can consider as evidence for a shift from hunting and gathering to an agrarian civilization:

The timeline points towards concurrent cultural and technological development across all continents. China did not predate the rest.

With regard to your accusation of racism:
I agree. I would argue that no race of people should be regarded as inherently inferior.

Genetic science, even when fully understood, will only allow us to make subjective interpretations w.r.t. people's genes.

Situationally? Maybe.

Whether a race/culture is righteous or evil, and to what degree, is determined by the actions of its people in a given time and place.

Son of Brock Landers said...

This wasn't a race issues post. It was a media cant report on reality of a gender issue because of their feminist propaganda post.

peterike said...

Oh dear. The problem when dealing with idiots is that in five minutes they can spout so much stupidity that it takes you a week to unravel it all, i.e. Mr. Cynical. This, by the way, is why the media always wins. When you have the megaphone you can spout false talking points quickly, and nobody sticks around to hear why they aren't true, assuming the rebutter is eloquent enough to even do it (unlike, say, most Republicans).

Anyway, I'm not wasting my life on all of Mr. Cynical's multiple falsehoods, but let's mention this one because it's so common:

And, FYI, there are more whites on welfare, you racist pussy.

Incorrect. This was true for a long time given the much larger white population -- true that is in total numbers; it was never true as a percentage. As such, Progressives trotted this out continually, as if it meant anything at all in their arguments (it does not).

In any case, some time ago the lines crossed, and there are now more blacks in total on "welfare" than whites. Which is amazing considering how much smaller a percentage of the population they are (it sure doesn't feel that way).

Probably more whites are on food stamps, given the massive rise in use under the Obama regime. But stats are hard to come by and they are all polluted because so many Hispanics, Arabs, etc. get listed as "white."

Rifleman said...

...redefining the old term white slavery.

More like redefining the old term yellow journalism. These exaggerated, moral panic sex stories happen all the time.

And for the sake of your humble little blog don't allow your current troll to remain. I really wish bloggers would respect regular readers enough not to allow trolls and creeps to flood the comment sections with garbage.

Son of Brock Landers said...

@Rifleman - There was no panic. This was all glamour talk on escorting.

I'll keep that note for the future on commenters. I've only ever deleted comments by people who used my real name or on the "black female-white male low divorce rate" post I delete vicious comments that black men/women leave about the other side. In retrospect i wish i had kept them in moderation and used them for a post on horrible state of gender relations in black community.