Maidan

This is my direct reply to the article, which I submitted to the ynet web site. It awaits moderation and approval. What's the betting the moderators won't publish it, thereby proving my point about the creeping social acceptability of male persecution?

*****************************************************************

Can you produce any credible evidence, i.e. from an authoritative study which applies scientific method, to support two implicit assumptions you are making, that

(1) all or even most of the sex workers (prostitutes) who work in brothels in Israel (or anywhere else for that matter) work under the conditions of slavery that you describe?

(2) all or even most female sex workers were sexually abused as children?

Until you can, your assertions amount to lies and smears against men which, if targeted specifically against Jews or blacks, would be universally condemned as racist bigotry. Alarm bells would ring because the history of white imperialism, black slavery and Nazi Germany is behind us. But the history of feminist fascism and persecution is too close and recent, and the worst is probably still in front of us; that's why we have yet to recognise it creeping up, and probably won't do so until it's too late (if it isn't too late already). Exactly as it happened in Nazi Germany.

Today, even human rights organisations seemingly don't notice - or don't care - about their own baseless propoganda spouting offensive, vitriolic slander against the male half of the human race. The insinuation being made here is that the average 'John' is responsible for sustaining white female slavery, and for sexually abusing his own children or capitalising on the consequences of another 'John' having done so.

Slavery by any other name is still slavery, and unacceptable. But you are conflating two issues here: the morality or otherwise of (1) men (and occasionally women) paying for sexual services and (2) the conditions under which women and girls (and occasionally men and boys) provide those services.

The consumer of any service, sexual or otherwise, generally has little or no influence over the conditions in which workers provide that service. Moreover, as long as brothels remain illegal and underground, it is almost impossible to acquire that information. Therefore, I submit that the moral issue here does not arise at the point of demand in the commercial sex industry, but at the point of supply. I am sick and tired of being hectored by the conservative-feminist lobby, and its male apologistis, about my legitimate needs as a human male being off-limits.

There are, broadly, two strategies for tackling sex slavery. You could attack the demand side of the equation: go on yet another feminist rampage, demonising men and campaigning to get tougher on their use of commercial sex services. Or you could attack the supply side, for example with a Marshall Plan for eastern Europe to counter the appalling poverty which creates the conditions for sex slaves to be sourced from that region.

And, how about campaigning to legalise and legitimise the sex industry. Every legitimate industry has its share of cowboys and robber-barons; but they are far fewer in number than they would be if those industries were pushed underground. Ask any American historian about alcohol prohibition in the 1930s. Legalisation = ethical standards, worker's rights and public accountability.

All former campaigns against slavery were directed against the slavemasters and their political apologists. If anybody had suggested to Wilberforce that the mass of ordinary consumers should be condemned and persecuted for assisting slavery, he would have thought they were stark raving mad.

And it doesn't get much more bonkers than human rights organisations waging a war against half the human race in the name of the other half.

P.S. Why isn't there an International Men's Day?