SEXUAL TRANSACTIONALISM – Success objects, separating the men from the boys and transactionalism in sexual relationships

I remember a girl talking about her highschool years and how she was suspended for fighting because another girl called her a whore (probably because a guy said he liked the first girl or some such crap). Another guy in the vicinity laughed with her about how. “That’s such a girl fight.” I mention this because everyone seems to understand intuitively that calling a woman/girl a whore is seen as the worst insult most people can imagine.

Years ago I found it strange how so many females could claim to be, if not feminist then pro “women’s issues” and pay lip service to concern about the exploitation of sexworkers while accepting the term “whore” as such a horrible slur–even using it themselves. But it makes sense since they don’t want the “brand” of womanhood damaged by being sold discount, whether literally by prostitutes or figuratively by promiscuous women, strippers, girls who dress “slutty” etc. Anyone doing so represents a perceived threat to the “worth” of other women.

A recent study making the rounds in the news purportedly showed that women are less likely to be open to friendships with women they perceive as permiscuous. It isn’t just that they see such women as competitor but as competitors who are undercutting the price to near or below cost, so to speak.

This is why prostitution is always going to be seen as worthy of criminalizing, until something major changes. You can make all the arguments about legal prostitution being safer or an issue of personal liberty but as long as most women see it as devaluing themselves merely by its existing it will be opposed.

I’m going to do some “feminist logic” now, make of it what you will:

The use of ‘whore’ and ‘prostitute’ as insults isn’t in any way used to decry the transactional nature of the woman’s interactions with men (such as marrying rich men, or blagging free drinks), but rather what is seen as the indiscrimination of the woman in the men she will accept the transaction from (in particular whether the men are genuinely attractive in some way). This is why prostitutes themselves are hated; because they’ll ‘trade’ with any guy.

The fact that the major factor in whether a woman is called a ‘whore’ is the ‘low value’ of the men the woman is dealing with means any time that a woman is called a ‘whore’ it is actually an example of misandry. It is the men who are the real victims of hate in the situation.

Likewise, society’s treatment of prostitutes and attitude to prostitution is misandry. High class escorts generally get less abuse than your common streetwalker, purely due to society‘s opinion of the men they are dealing with. Therefore misandry.

“But it makes sense since they don’t want the “brand” of womanhood damaged by being sold discount, whether literally by prostitutes or figuratively by promiscuous women, strippers, girls who dress “slutty” etc. Anyone doing so represents a perceived threat to the “worth” of other women. ”

Interesting-the “Walmart” argument-you don’t want the “brand” devalued and sold for less-because you might hae to lower your prices?

Here’s another question: Is part of the objection to prostitution by on some level based on the fact that “honesty can hurt”? If, in fact, a huge proportion of relationships are transactional, and I think in many ways they are-be it it trading support for care of the home, as one poster mention, or trading the company and the possibility of sex for gifts, as another mentions-then prostitution would, at the end of the day, be fundamentally more HONEST about the nature of some relationships. No need for the gifts and the dance-just give me the cash… I can’t help but wonder if on some level it isn’t only a question of “price” or “value” but perhaps also a problem with people actually stating, up front and outright, that it is transactional? I’ll do this for you if you do that for me with no games?

And if so, then in combination does this mean feminism is in fact: (A) simply seeking to increase the “value” of women, thereby treating them as nothing more than a commodity in a marketplace; and (B) fundamentally dishonest on the subject of sexual transactionalism?

Just a random thought….

“I suppose we ought to stress the usual NAWALT. ”

Totally. Lesbians.

Everyone – excellent coments! reading my mind.

1. The “Walmart argument” Love it. Perfect formulation.

2. The pretzel logic around who is beiong exploited – that’s a whole post in itlesf. I suspect that a lot of the narrative around rape culture is to mask the prostitution culture we have.

3. “Anyhow, I remember the feeling of revelation when I was young and first had the thought, “wait, all women are whores”. ”

I remember an after dinner conversation where my mother observed that little girls are taught to be prostitutes. Shocked me then. I got over it.

4. “It is the men who are the real victims of hate in the situation.”
Yes, because it assumes that sex with men is so degrading.

So, what I’m getting out of this song is that a) someone actually called themselves ‘Big Bopper’ (weirdest name ever still goes to ‘Welldone the Pussy-hand,’ but at least he was fictional); b) this person wants to be with a girl who makes them feel like a girl (which is apparently somewhat akin to being a goose, so they might also be a furry); and c) this person is quite fond of a fabric that yields some decidedly NSFW search results and is probably a pain in the ass to sew with.

I can’t say that I ever had any big revelatory moment like some of the people here seem to have, but I’ve also never felt the slightest interest in that traditional model of relationships. It’s a rule of mine never to pay for people who expect it of me. I also stopped using ‘whore’ as an insult once I found out what it meant, because it didn’t strike me as being terribly problematic.

As far as Filipovic’s criticism of men’s dating choices, which is in itself a strawman (get to that later), it’s important to realize that it really only applies to high-status, highly-sought-after men. Hypergamists couldn’t care any less for the unwashed masses acquiring a taste for self-avowed high class broads such as herself – there’s an entirely different set of standards for those men. The argument as it’s been laid out is basically an attempt to screw other women out of a good husband; women who she finds undeserving of the big prize. These women ostensibly offer a better deal at a lower price to these men than Filipovic would want to offer herself. She can’t have that.

So then there’s the issue of Filipovic’s portrayal of men’s mating choices being a strawman. The context here is that men already pay a high enough price in terms of their personal wealth, health, and psyches. They just can’t afford to pay more. Dating down is actually as equitable as those men can make it, given the amount of sweat equity they must put into what is ultimately an incredibly risky venture.

Remember this ad and the many angry responses it got? A conventionally unattractive man kissing a conventionally attractive woman must be some form of abuse or fraud.