Oh, God. Here we go again. Gentlemen, when will you get it through your brains that your dicks are little more than of the devil? Someday, humanity will wake up to the wonderful truth set forth by the mother in that memorable film, Peggy Sue Got Married: “Peggy Sue, you know what a penis is… Stay away from it!”

Some lady named Janice G. Raymond has written an article about the “evil” of prostitution. According to her bio at the end, “Janice G. Raymond is professor emerita of women’s studies…” Need I say more? You already know what Ms. G. Raymond thinks about whores and their enablers. How dare a woman accept money for sex! She should be made to wear a chastity belt, no tongue kissing, and “stay away” from the P-word, until she accepts money on the ring finger of her left hand, for staying home to cook, clean, having exclusive use of the car, and oh yeah, sex. Money for sex with a stranger: evil. Money for sex with a man who is successfully tamed, whom the thugs in charge of your land mass have officially declared to be your husband: good.

Ms. G. Raymond, a studier of women, thinks that bartering with one’s body is somehow perverse. What Ms. G. Raymond doesn’t realize is that both men and women barter with their bodies on a regular basis, and not just for sex. A man who doesn’t show up to work with a working body doesn’t get paid. If he doesn’t get paid, he may very well not get laid, because a man who doesn’t show up back home with a paycheck is just one more mouth to feed, and there ain’t no food where there ain’t no paycheck. What difference does it make whether the man barters his body on behalf of a coal mine, or the woman he’s banging barters hers for a little domestic security? Remove the man from the ability to barter at all, as has been done successfully in the black American community, ensure that the woman gets paid for getting laid and pregnant, and the woman accepts money for sex: a welfare prostitute. Why isn’t this exploitation, Ms. G. Raymond? (By the way boys, Mo’Nique deserved that Oscar.)

Because when we’re not talking about the prostitution Ms. G. Raymond abhors, you’re not going to hear about exploitation. A man who is pushed off his land and taxed into submission by a government, who has his choices limited by wealthy men (and now women) that start corporations and get into bed with that same government, takes one of the few choices left for any man that wants to feel like a man, and goes deep into that coal shaft. A woman with similarly reduced choices gets on her back, while the paying customer on top of her does most of the work. Both the man and the woman have bartered their bodies. The difference lies in the fact that the woman has made a physically safer choice, although admittedly more intimate. It is also a far easier choice. However, in some small way, she is doing what an ordinary housewife does: She brings herself to the transaction, knowing full well what the man wants out of it. She can just lie there and wait fifteen minutes if she wants.

And why is it that we never hear about male prostitutes when the official heralding of the Exploitation Horn is heard? They’re out there. I’ve seen ’em… Okay, I’ve met ’em. There’re quite a lot of them. Sadly, from what I hear, the heterosexual ones are “forced“ to accept male clients quite a lot, mainly because most women who really, really want sex simply have to ask the nearest man for free. Why don’t these feminists ever explore that angle? Oh, that’s right: women’s studies!

I think it’s more than that. After all, these are men. Men can look after themselves. Men are natural providers; they should figure out a way of providing for themselves. Men are generally smarter than women, physically stronger, tougher-minded, more solitary, territorial, better at navigation and spatial relationships, and have visibly accomplished far more in this world than women. If a man wants to be a prostitute, therefore, he simply cannot be exploited. Women, being generally weaker than men in every way, are too easily manipulated and pushed around. Therefore, men and women are not equal.

Whoops! How did a women’s studies expert (who has probably never been laid properly) stumble on that conclusion?! That can’t be right. Back to the drawing board, girls. It must be something else…

I’ll tell you what it is, you coercive, death-oriented Madam of the Brothel of Feminist Nonsense: punishment for possessing a penis (or PPP for short). Prostitution, in general, pleases men. More specifically, it pleases the part of a man that he normally considers his favorite, virtually the only visible part of the anatomy that classifies him as a man at all: his dick. This marvelous organ is genetically pre-programmed to respond to anything soft, wet, and warm. Chiefly, it responds to pussy. Access to one may prove difficult for some men, so one more option for pleasuring the little guy is, from time to time, to pay for pussy. The only difference is, for access on an ongoing basis not only to pussy, but to all the other wonderful things a woman can bring into a man’s life — her cooking, her femininity, her decorative abilities, her niceness, her gentleness, her sense of humor, her miraculous ability to create life, her nurturance, her innate intelligence — it is required of the man to pay up quite a lot more. The kind of body-bartering that Ms. G. Raymond opposes is actually far cheaper monetarily. Granted, there may be emotional or psychological side effects that the man or the woman finds displeasing, but all of that is so relative as to beggar belief. Ms. G. Raymond would have us believe otherwise.

Which is why rent boys are never mentioned. Being a male prostitute has nothing to do with PPP. Beyond that, it evens the field for playing victim, and the feminist/misandrist team wants to play where there’s a little hill they can control. The men’s team must always be at a disadvantage, or the game is called off. When a straight male prostitute takes it up the ass from a male client, as opposed to a straight female prostitute being sodomized, the idea of exploitation suddenly evaporates, in spite of the fact that the straight male prostitute will probably spend a great deal more time afterward in a much hotter shower to get the feel and stink of another man off of his body. (I’ve watched straight boys do it for money online — they genuinely do not like it. To be honest, I’ve tired of watching them. Misaporno, here I come!)

I am baffled by the article’s obsession with European prostitution. Germany, of all places. A woman who finds herself selling her body in such a country is, at any given moment, a stone’s throw away from any number of institutions that have spawned the world’s greatest philosophers, composers, playwrights, poets, architects, artists, scientists, mathematicians, and economists. Beyond that, she is exposed every hour of every day to the onslaught of feminist ideology, enshrined in virtually every institution throughout Germany, including their mass media. Instead, that whore is taking the easy way out.

That isn’t just a female trait: It’s human. We all want the easy way out. Try going back to writing everything by hand. Try walking two miles to the store instead of driving. Try going back to office work without computers. Try washing your dishes, even your clothes, by hand. If you’re Ms. G. Raymond, try doing something about prostitution purely voluntarily, as opposed to running off to bureaucracies with guns to make them do it. If humanity didn’t want the easy way out, then a man with a gambling problem, who has solicited prostitutes in the past, would not suddenly embrace Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, supposedly wiping away his manifold sins in an instant. He also wouldn’t have a car. Prostitution is easy for a great many women, because there are a great many men who aren’t getting any, or not nearly enough. The ease of a career path does not equate with exploitation.

At what level is exploitation not up to individual interpretation, Ms. G. Raymond? She’ll never have an answer, but the crowds will applaud her nonetheless, because if you bother to read her stupid article, you’ll notice that much of what she says is simply a given. The article is not questioning the “evil” of prostitution; it merely questions how different European bureaucracies handle the “evil” itself. The article is not questioning who is responsible: Men are. The article is not questioning who the victims are: Women, and children who are lumped in sexless, with female adults engaging in volitional behavior that is inherently “evil.”

In the article there is no mention of Denmark’s record, a country where prostitution is semi-legal. (Maybe she couldn’t find anything bad about Danish whores?) Instead, all the article says about semi-legal prostitution in other European countries is that: “In 2007, a federal government report found that the German Prostitution Act had not improved conditions for women in the prostitution industry nor helped them to leave. It had also failed ‘to reduce crime in the world of prostitution.’“ (I wonder what the odds are of an act being able to improve conditions for prostitutes when one of the intentions of the act is to help them leave prostitution.) What about The Netherlands, famous for its red light districts? “The government-commissioned 2007 Daalder report found that the majority of women in the window brothels are still subject to pimp control, and their ’emotional well-being is now lower than in 2001 on all measured aspects.’“

That’s more arbitrariness and subjective description than I even care to think about, and that’s just three sentences about two semi-legal countries. What conditions need improving? What are the crimes being committed, and should they be considered crimes, or are we just talking about volitional drug-taking? Define “emotional well-being,” you self-righteous idiot. How many other horrible things have happened in this world since 2001 that might be having an impact on well-being? War? Recession? This ringing any bells?

The governments of Europe, who came along after the creation of human relationships, the division of labor, and the creation of currency, put themselves in charge of the money supply, embraced dangerous and foolhardy economic standards, and are now in the process of destroying the economy upon which these women depend for their very survival, and yet because hookers aren’t completely happy, well Ms. G. Raymond now has a shot at the big time, so fuck all of that other stuff. When the economies of these First World countries finally do collapse, there will be a great many more women turning to prostitution to make ends meet. So much for women’s studies.

But not for Ms. G. Raymond’s ego. This has been the problem with progressive ideology all along. Results don’t matter. What does matter is whether or not the feminist progressives in charge get laws passed that say what they want, and whether they also get the credit. Soon, women all over the continent of Europe will be scrounging for food, but at least Ms. G. Raymond and her lesbian lover will be safely insulated from the greater horrors, because they know how to play the political game. Alpha females who succeed on the backs of alpha males have no real need to explore the inner lives of female prostitutes, because they know how to direct the biggest and baddest guns, manufactured by men. PPP will thrive until there’s nothing left to eat. You want to see exploitation? Lady, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

Here’s another article that argues for reduction in rape via legalization of “exploitative” prostitution. According to the author, “Using this model, it is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year.” Below is the list with the rate of rape sorted ascending:

As you can see, there are plenty of Portuguese dudes getting a piece, and look at their comparatively low rape and homicide rates. Portuguese prostitution is not prosecutable, unless a third party is involved. (No threeways?) Conversely, in Ms. G. Raymond’s home country, where prostitution carries a terrible stigma (along with the male sex drive), and is still a prosecutable offense in most geographic locations, the rape and homicide rates are much higher, while the pussy action rate is much lower.

Color coding seems to indicate a trend of increased homicide and rape when there is less sex available, and the inverse when more men are getting laid. In fact, if you color code the countries and replace the rates (all ascending) with the names of the countries, you will see a very interesting trend. The color-coded countries at the top of the sex/month column (meaning very little humping going on) have a tendency to have higher rape and homicide rates:

The color-coded countries at the bottom of the list (meaning a lot of happy dicks) have a tendency to have lower rape and homicide rates (excepting The Netherlands, which oddly enough has the highest homicide rate):

Which goes along with what Angry Harry says: “Indeed, there is nowhere on this Earth where the people can be happy if the men are not happy.” I have been amazed (and I truly mean this on an intellectual level), since fully embracing my sexuality, at how easy it is to please another man in bed. Happiness, it seems, comes quite naturally to men. No pun intended.

So here’s a message for the man-hating Ms. G. Raymond: First of all, I will gladly take your supply of dick, since you don’t want it. Secondly, in countries where more men are having sex, there is frequently less rape and less violence. This is probably because all that pent-up sexual energy has various outlets. If you put less legal stumbling blocks in the way of penises, they will search out what they want, and, quite literally, BOOM! Problem solved.

But Ms. G. Raymond will never listen. She is convinced of her own “superior” intellect, and since she now has a title with “emerita” in it, a Latin term for “accepted by the only tribe that matters,” she can go on her merry way, now that decades of feminist thought, backed up by Puritanical beliefs that outlawed most of men’s sexual desires centuries ago, have given her faulty premises the look and feel of solid foundations. Sadly for all of us, her baseless beliefs will lead to more government intrusion into the most private of matters, more PPP, a great many more angry and shamed men, a lot more unhappiness, more guys walking around with UXP (unexploded penises), more rape, and more homicide. At some point in the future, I’m sure Ms. G. Raymond will be living in a gated community. I would, too, if I could afford it. Unfortunately, I’m not “emerita” anything.

B.R. Merrick writes for “Strike The Root“ and “A Voice for Men,” lives in the Northeast, is proud to be a classical music reviewer at Amazon.com and iTunes, and in spite of the poisonous nature of television, God Himself will have to pry his DVDs of “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” out of his cold, dead hands, under threat of eternal damnation.