Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week we discussed the topic of sugar daddy/baby relationships and what they reveal about gender relations when viewed through a red pill lens.

Today I stumbled across a blog by a former call girl who describes her career choice quite candidly, and in a way that challenges a lot of the commonly held stereotypes about the profession.

In this post she asserts there’s really little difference between a call girl/John relationship and a husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend one except call girls are openly and honestly acknowledging it’s an exchange of sex for resources with one key difference — unlike with dating or marriage, with a call girl the exchange is guaranteed.

In fact she hints that’s exactly why “good” women object so strongly to prostitution: because it puts the exchange many such women don’t want to admit right out there in the open where it makes those who want to pretend it’s (and they’re) not like that extremely uncomfortable.

It’s an interesting insight as far as inter-gender relations, even if I am not so sure myself that it always boils down to the simple equation of a woman gives a man what he wants (sex and/or babies) in exchange for what she wants (provision and/or protection.) And actually in this post, she says similar, and goes into the topic of transactional sex and marriage further. Interestingly, she speculates that it is the idea that all sex should be based on true love/feelings and should never, ever be transactional that is behind many a divorce today.

Once again, like with the sugar post,  I am not advocating women choose (or not choose) to become call girls or for this to get into a discussion about morality or virtue.  What I am more interested in is the question — is all male/female sex basically a transaction on some level?

Perhaps this is why, or at least partly why, women’s right activists and feminists advocate for a woman’s right to have sex for free with anyone they choose without “slut shaming” but will in the next breath take a hard line against actual whoring, saying it’s always about oppression and victimization? (Not that it sometimes isn’t.) Is that not a contradiction?

Perhaps they equate free/casual sex with independence and sex in trade for money or provision/protection (like marriage) as dependence? Or do they object because it somehow reveals something about the feminine imperative they would rather not be out in the open?

Are modern women trying to blur the line between sex and resources because they want to be able to exercise their option to get the goodies and NOT make the trade? (For example, in the sexless marriage.) Or to exercise the option to make the trade, when they want to, minus goodies? (For example, to be able to have casual or no strings sex without the social judgement of days gone by.) To have a sort of sliding scale approach, where some guys “pay” nothing while others “pay” dearly, based on how attracted she is to him? (the AFBB model)  Or are they simply trying to get an upper hand in the gender balance, exploiting their options as fully as possible while at the same time trying to limit men’s?

Her argument brings to mind an old saying once commonly said by mothers to daughters, which (in a seemingly opposite but perhaps similar way) feminists rally against because it also hints at this transaction nature of sex. “Why would he buy the cow if he can get the milk for free?”

It’s an interesting topic to ponder, I think. What do you think — is sex between women and men basically always about a transaction? And if so is that a fair exchange, or not?

(And if you did not click on the link and read the post that this post is in response to before, I highly recommend you do so before commenting whether you agree with her or not, just for purposes of discussion.)

 

 

 

 

Advertisements