NationStates Jolt Archive

Missouri state Representative Cynthia Davis, an anti-contraception activist, explains to us how all sexually-active women are whores and all men are johns:


"When I was listening to the debate last week I wondered what kind of man would want to enjoy free sex and then expect her to provide for her own contraceptives? These are the kind of men who want free whores. Any man who would be so low life as that does not deserve to have any woman love him. Smart women will stay away from men who use them and abuse them.

Why is it that most of the e-mail letters I get on this topic is from men? I have concluded that the chemicals and drugs are their way to have all the goodies and not pay the price. When you encourage this behavior, you create more of it. In other words, if the state starts paying for contraceptives we will have more babies than if we just teach people to not expect free prostitution from poor people. Don't you think having to pay child support for the next 18 years is a suitable disincentive?

...

The irresponsible men love it when women think they are supposed to give away free sex without any consequences."


It may seem obvious to some, but this letter filled in a piece that had been missing for me.

Women like Rep. Davis believe in the virgin-whore dichotomy in such a literal way that I actually never really got it. They believe that any woman who is has sex is a whore, in one way or another, and thus the real crime of a sex-positive woman is that she's not charging enough.

From their perspective, the real problem with feminism is that it's driving down prices. Every man who is sleeping with a willing, eager, sex-loving woman is one less man participating in the bidding war for the untouched cooters of virtuous anti-feminists. Every man who finds an independent and sexual woman is one less man who can be bribed into life-long providerhood by the promise of some shame-faced, awkward fumblings on the wedding night. If word gets out that women may actually enjoy sex, then how the hell is a gal gonna get paid?

It's not actually about tradition, morality, gender roles, or any of that other crap. It's about a pack of snotty hookers getting pissed off that the bitches on the other corner are undercutting their rates.

So how does that feel, folks? The morality crowd thinks that all women who have sex are whores, and all men who have sex are johns. You're either selling sex or buying it.

For the menfolk, how does it feel to know that no woman ever wants to have sex with you? Women don't want sex, they want to see how high a price they can set before you'll wander off to find cheaper pussy. You think your girlfriend or your wife likes being with you? Well, Rep. Davis and company think her arousal is set by your pocketbook.

For the womenfolk, how does it feel to know that you will be the subject of insults and slurs if you dare to have sex without demanding payment? You better get a diamond ring out of him up front, or else you're a cheap slut who deserves to be punished with STDs and pregnancy. How does it feel to know that your "morality" is defined by the rates you charge?


*link: http://feministing.com/archives/002903.html#more

Oh, I knew alright.

Eh, j/k, felt like somebody had to say it. :p

Joke's on you, women, cos I'm broke.

I too have found it ironic that people seem to think that wanting things (material or otherwise) in return for sex makes one less like a prostitute.

Oh come on Bottle, stop being naive, how did you think I was paying for the internet?

Seriously though I'm more disturbed by this
In other words, if the state starts paying for contraceptives we will have more babies than if we just teach people to not expect free prostitution from poor people.
The guys got a point, instead of free contraception we should just teach poor people to charge as much as us high pricers, that way prices will go up and poor people can afford their own darn contraceptives....let them eat rubber...

Seriously though I'm more disturbed by this
In other words, if the state starts paying for contraceptives we will have more babies than if we just teach people to not expect free prostitution from poor people.
Yeah, I didn't quite get why she (because she's a woman, Zagat, which is part of Bottle's point) put the "poor" in that sentence. Anyone care to enlighten me?

so any man with an ounce of self respect insists on paying for sex?

I too have found it ironic that people seem to think that wanting things (material or otherwise) in return for sex makes one less like a prostitute.
That one had me stumped until I read Rep. Davis' letter. It seemed a little odd to me, for people to insist that women who "give it away for free" are whores, while women who demand jewelry and contracts are not.

But now it's much clearer: ALL women are whores, it's just a matter of whether they are cheap sluts or expensive "escorts".

so any man with an ounce of self respect insists on paying for sex?
Yes. And only "irresponsible" men use condoms.

LOL! And more to the point, would such a man be "manly?" :D

Yeah, I didn't quite get why she (because she's a woman, Zagat, which is part of Bottle's point) put the "poor" in that sentence. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Well, see, rich people can afford their own condoms. Rich people can also fly their daughters to France for a "vacation" if the poor angel gets knocked up. It's the poor people you've got to worry about.

Poor people have this weird notion that they should be allowed to have sex. If we provide them with access to health care or contraceptives, then they might not suffer as much when they have sex. This would be bad, because poor people should suffer for having sex. They should know better.

Hmmm, interesting. Batshit crazy house representative 1 is named Cynthia, and Batshit crazy house representative 2 is named cynthia. Hmmmm. Curiouser and curiouser. I think it would be a bad idea to let the two cynthias get together in the same room.

That one had me stumped until I read Rep. Davis' letter. It seemed a little odd to me, for people to insist that women who "give it away for free" are whores, while women who demand jewelry and contracts are not.

But now it's much clearer: ALL women are whores, it's just a matter of whether they are cheap sluts or expensive "escorts".

Ha! I wonder what kind of psyche dreams up such an idea. I would say that some kind of hatred or phobia or sexuality is the main factor.

LOL! And more to the point, would such a man be "manly?" :D
I'm not certain but I rather suspect the manliness would vary in accordance with the amount charged by the whore concerned.

so any man with an ounce of self respect insists on paying for sex?

Society already expects men to pay for the date, this is just the logical extension of that. ;)

I'm not certain but I rather suspect the manliness would vary in accordance with the amount charged by the whore concerned.
Well, the nearest I can figure it, a man's manliness is determined by how well he can haggle...if he's got $50 for a night on the town, how many vaginas can he get for his money?

Conversely, a woman's womanliness is defined by how well SHE haggles. If she's got a few fellows interested in buying her vagina, how high can she get the bidding to go? Can she get earrings AND a ring? How about a cute new car?

Everyone knows that this is a man's world and a woman's only means is to sell her sex for the support and protection of a man. Once she just starts giving it away she is completely worthless.

C'mon Bottle, the rest of us have known this for 10,000 years, where have you been?

Well, the nearest I can figure it, a man's manliness is determined by how well he can haggle...if he's got $50 for a night on the town, how many vaginas can he get for his money?

Conversely, a woman's womanliness is defined by how well SHE haggles. If she's got a few fellows interested in buying her vagina, how high can she get the bidding to go? Can she get earrings AND a ring? How about a cute new car?
Yes, and that is why some people are poor, because some woman are really womanly some men pay to much, meanwhile some men are really manly so the women that get stuck with them are gonna be eating out of trash-cans, not to mention paying for their own contraceptives...

Oh come on Bottle, stop being naive, how did you think I was paying for the internet?

Seriously though I'm more disturbed by this
In other words, if the state starts paying for contraceptives we will have more babies than if we just teach people to not expect free prostitution from poor people.
The guys got a point, instead of free contraception we should just teach poor people to charge as much as us high pricers, that way prices will go up and poor people can afford their own darn contraceptives....let them eat rubber...
I commend all of you for getting to the "poor people" bit. I got hung up on the giving people contraceptives leads to more babies thing. What huh who wha-how? :confused:

LOL! And more to the point, would such a man be "manly?" :D
Oh come on, Eut. I haven't even looked at your "manliness" thread because everybody knows manliness comes from the scent of Irish Spring soap.

Oh come on, Eut. I haven't even looked at your "manliness" thread because everybody knows manliness comes from the scent of Irish Spring soap.
Damn, and I always thought it was Old Spice. *rips notebook to shreds*

Well, see, rich people can afford their own condoms. Rich people can also fly their daughters to France for a "vacation" if the poor angel gets knocked up. It's the poor people you've got to worry about.
Well, duh. It is a matter of natural selection of traits. Those born with the trait "Shit Broke" should be discouraged from reproducing while those who are "Filthy Fucking Rich" should be fucking filthily to spread their genes. And inheritences.
There, now that is the third major world problem I've solved (The first one being the Identity of Jesus and the second one being about the NS Parliament), I think that, around now, you all should be paying me a consultancy fee.

Damn, and I always thought it was Old Spice. *rips notebook to shreds*
Poor dear. I hope you haven't wasted too much of your life smelling like an old sailor instead of a leprechaun.

I mean -- a leprechaun with a pot of gold.

Just trying to stay on topic. ;)

Everyone knows that this is a man's world and a woman's only means is to sell her sex for the support and protection of a man. Once she just starts giving it away she is completely worthless.

Sorry, sorry, I just got confused by the fact that "whore" is used as an insult...I assumed that this meant seeing one's body is a BAD thing. My mistake.


C'mon Bottle, the rest of us have known this for 10,000 years, where have you been?
I've been wasting my time not whoring myself.

You think your girlfriend or your wife likes being with you? Well, Rep. Davis and company think her arousal is set by your pocketbook.
Their loss. :p

Sorry, sorry, I just got confused by the fact that "whore" is used as an insult...I assumed that this meant seeing one's body is a BAD thing. My mistake.

I've been wasting my time not whoring myself.

Once you learn that a woman's only role in society is to be a child-raising whore, then you will be much better off.

Well, see, rich people can afford their own condoms. Rich people can also fly their daughters to France for a "vacation" if the poor angel gets knocked up. It's the poor people you've got to worry about.

Poor people have this weird notion that they should be allowed to have sex. If we provide them with access to health care or contraceptives, then they might not suffer as much when they have sex. This would be bad, because poor people should suffer for having sex. They should know better.
For some reason, I was immediately reminded of this bit from The Importance of Being Earnest.
Really, if the lower orders don't set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have absolutely no sense of moral responsibility.

For some reason, I was immediately reminded of this bit from The Importance of Being Earnest.
Well, it's a good point. Where on Earth did the poor get this silly notion that they should be able to avoid or reduce their suffering?

Down right un-American, that is.

Well, it's a good point. Where on Earth did the poor get this silly notion that they should be able to avoid or reduce their suffering?

Down right un-American, that is.
After all, if they're able to be poor and not miserable at the same time, then why would they ever strive to be rich?

I don't think I should have to pay for some guy's Viagra. I don't think I should pay for some woman's birth control pills. Many of the so-called 'poor' in America are quite well off enough to be able to pick up a box of condoms if they really wanted them. If I feel like donating, fine, but don't expect me to be happy when it's stolen from me based on some person's inability to budget.

I don't think I should have to pay for some guy's Viagra. I don't think I should pay for some woman's birth control pills. Many of the so-called 'poor' in America are quite well off enough to be able to pick up a box of condoms if they really wanted them. If I feel like donating, fine, but don't expect me to be happy when it's stolen from me based on some person's inability to budget.
If you're not paying for their birth control then you'll end up paying for their babies. Which would you prefer?

If you're not paying for their birth control then you'll end up paying for their babies. Which would you prefer?
The pill's a lot cheaper than gated communities that won't protect you come the revolution.

If you're not paying for their birth control then you'll end up paying for their babies. Which would you prefer?They can pay for their own babies. I don't feel much sympathy. If you mean paying as in taxes that go to schools etc., then yes I will be paying for them, but not for prevention of a stupid mistake on someone's part. I'll be paying for them because I like living in an educated society. The kid has worth. The bad decision does not. I won't hand out money because people make bad decisions.

My god, my god! I can't believe there are still people that think this way! You know what, we may not have had Y2K in our computers, but apparently it's the year 1900 (or perhaps just the year zero) in some people's minds instead.

They believe that any woman who is has sex is a whore, in one way or another, and thus the real crime of a sex-positive woman is that she's not charging enough.

Wow what are the odds that I'm actually listening to Gold Digga right now :p

Yeah she's a triflen friend indeed.

If two gay men or lesbians have sex, which is the whore and which is the john?

If two gay men or lesbians have sex, which is the whore and which is the john?
That's decided when they sign the adoption papers.

They can pay for their own babies. I don't feel much sympathy. If you mean paying as in taxes that go to schools etc., then yes I will be paying for them, but not for prevention of a stupid mistake on someone's part. I'll be paying for them because I like living in an educated society. The kid has worth. The bad decision does not. I won't hand out money because people make bad decisions.
So, it's worth it to you to pay more, is what you're saying.

So, it's worth it to you to pay more, is what you're saying.What I'm saying is that people can pay for their own birth control or performance drugs. If they want it they can get it... and if they don't want it badly enough, they can support the kid. It's their decision. It's quite a lot more money and effort on their part to raise the kid, and no, I don't mind helping for things like schools because I have a direct interest in the health of society. Plus, the child will most likely pay it back one day anyway. Everyone benefits from an educated populace, but very, very few benefit from something like Viagra. Why should I have to pay it? I shouldn't.

What I'm saying is that people can pay for their own birth control or performance drugs. If they want it they can get it... and if they don't want it badly enough, they can support the kid. It's their decision. It's quite a lot more money and effort on their part to raise the kid, and no, I don't mind helping for things like schools because I have a direct interest in the health of society. Plus, the child will most likely pay it back one day anyway. Everyone benefits from an educated populace, but very, very few benefit from something like Viagra. Why should I have to pay it? I shouldn't.
I don't think performance drugs are the issue here... unless I'm mistaken? Things like condoms are the issue and should be freely available. I don't mind throwing in my fifty cents.

Just when you think that politicans can't say anything stupider, along comes another one and opens his or her mouth.

Why is it that we keep electing people like her?

politicians are the ultimate whores

For the menfolk, how does it feel to know that no woman ever wants to have sex with you? Women don't want sex, they want to see how high a price they can set before you'll wander off to find cheaper pussy. You think your girlfriend or your wife likes being with you? Well, Rep. Davis and company think her arousal is set by your pocketbook.



I'm pretty much used to it. :headbang:

I don't think performance drugs are the issue here... unless I'm mistaken? Things like condoms are the issue and should be freely available. I don't mind throwing in my fifty cents.Things like condoms are the issue, and they're available cheaply enough that it's equivalent. I shouldn't have to pay for other people's choices, and deciding not to buy is definitely a choice. They can make it, and I don't care whether they do or not. Just don't use my money to subsidize their decisions when it's unnecessary for their wellbeing. The government is not responsible for economic problems people might have when they have unexpected (ha!) children. The parents are responsible.

Things like condoms are the issue, and they're available cheaply enough that it's equivalent. I shouldn't have to pay for other people's choices, and deciding not to buy is definitely a choice. They can make it, and I don't care whether they do or not. Just don't use my money to subsidize their decisions when it's unnecessary for their wellbeing. The government is not responsible for economic problems people might have when they have unexpected (ha!) children. The parents are responsible.
Except when it comes to schooling and the child's health care. So, you don't mind spending more money.

As I see it, the "sexually-active woman = whore, sexually active man = john" argument has merit if, and only if all human interaction boils down to a form of economic transaction. This may not be as far-fetched as it sounds - some of the favor trading seen in friendships and other social interactions seems rather reminscient of long-term business contracts.

Regardless, the Representative quoted in the first paragraph is wrong either way - after all, everyone knows that low prices are good for the economy! :D

Except when it comes to schooling and the child's health care. So, you don't mind spending more money.On something that has value to me, certaintly.

I'm not certain but I rather suspect the manliness would vary in accordance with the amount charged by the whore concerned.
Oh? I would have thought just the reverse: what the whore ( God, I hate that word! ) charged would be based on just how "manly" the manly man was! :D

As I see it, the "sexually-active woman = whore, sexually active man = john" argument has merit if, and only if all human interaction boils down to a form of economic transaction. This may not be as far-fetched as it sounds - some of the favor trading seen in friendships and other social interactions seems rather reminscient of long-term business contracts.

Regardless, the Representative quoted in the first paragraph is wrong either way - after all, everyone knows that low prices are good for the economy! :D
Yayy! Increase the legions of whores! The price will fall, deflation will follow, everyone gets laid, and my fixed income is worth a HELL of a lot more! Whores for everyone! :D

It's all about throughput, my man, all about throughput! :D

As I see it, the "sexually-active woman = whore, sexually active man = john" argument has merit if, and only if all human interaction boils down to a form of economic transaction. This may not be as far-fetched as it sounds - some of the favor trading seen in friendships and other social interactions seems rather reminscient of long-term business contracts.

Regardless, the Representative quoted in the first paragraph is wrong either way - after all, everyone knows that low prices are good for the economy! :D

Lower prices are only good so long as you still get high quality products... If you know what I mean.

Lower prices are only good so long as you still get high quality products... If you know what I mean.

True, but the longer you abstain from aforementioned product, the lower-quality a product you are ultimately willing to accept.

Missouri state Representative Cynthia Davis, an anti-contraception activist, explains to us how all sexually-active women are whores and all men are johns:

*snip*

It's not actually about tradition, morality, gender roles, or any of that other crap. It's about a pack of snotty hookers getting pissed off that the bitches on the other corner are undercutting their rates.

Bottle, how long has it been since I told you I loved you?

How is paying child support for the "next eighteen years" supposed to even come close to being a "disincentive"? Most people who have unprotected sex are not usually thinking about the consequences. She's frighteningly uninformed about human nature.

Contraception is free in the UK, so that must mean that all English Women are whores right?! OH my god...THAT is why my boyfriend came over from Canada....doh! I get it now.....

*Must start asking for more hard cash :headbang:

I'm puzzled by the term "Free Prostitution". If prostitution is the act of selling yourself, how can you be selling yourself if you aren't charging anything? :confused:

If two gay men or lesbians have sex, which is the whore and which is the john?
Neither, by opting out of the market they declare themselves communists and should be shot.

I'll bet you didn't even know that you're a whore

Actually I did..My ex Husband told me.

Things like condoms are the issue, and they're available cheaply enough that it's equivalent. I shouldn't have to pay for other people's choices, and deciding not to buy is definitely a choice. They can make it, and I don't care whether they do or not. Just don't use my money to subsidize their decisions when it's unnecessary for their wellbeing. The government is not responsible for economic problems people might have when they have unexpected (ha!) children. The parents are responsible.
What everyone is saying is that if people can't afford condoms, then they also can't afford to raise children. If they can't pay to raise their children, then you will be paying to raise their children. Would you rather pay to raise a child or pay for a box of condoms?

Neither, by opting out of the market they declare themselves communists and should be shot.It seems to me that one of the homosexuals could conceivably be selling sex and the other wanting to buy it, but I can't figure out how to tell which is which unless they state so explicitly.

Things like condoms are the issue, and they're available cheaply enough that it's equivalent. I shouldn't have to pay for other people's choices, and deciding not to buy is definitely a choice. They can make it, and I don't care whether they do or not. Just don't use my money to subsidize their decisions when it's unnecessary for their wellbeing. The government is not responsible for economic problems people might have when they have unexpected (ha!) children. The parents are responsible.
Economically speaking, it's cheaper to pay for the condom.

Look at it this way:
You pay into a insurance fund that has to reimburse different sort of treatments. That insurance can either pay 10$ for a box of condoms or 30 000$ for a birthing procedure / 10 000$ for an abortion. Now, guess which is more costly and therefore will raise the premium price of everyone who's buying into the insurance? I'll give you a hint: it's not the expensive trip to the hospital.

thus the real crime of a sex-positive woman is that she's not charging enough.

From their perspective, the real problem with feminism is that it's driving down prices.

Got to love market forces.




(Also I thought "john" was American slang for toilet :confused: )

(Also I thought "john" was American slang for toilet :confused: )
it is. It is also slang for someone who picks up prostitutes. I always thought it was funny.

Yayy! Increase the legions of whores! The price will fall, deflation will follow, everyone gets laid, and my fixed income is worth a HELL of a lot more! Whores for everyone! :D
see? by never having sex with you, we women are keeping the economy good.

you should be grateful.

If I was getting paid for it, I'd like to think I'd be a little better off than I am now. I consider myself a better than average practitioner.

If I was getting paid for it, I'd like to think I'd be a little better off than I am now. I consider myself a better than average practitioner.
its all in the marketing, kitten

maybe you need a better advertising agency?

Originally Posted by Shotagon
What I'm saying is that people can pay for their own birth control or performance drugs. If they want it they can get it... and if they don't want it badly enough, they can support the kid. It's their decision. It's quite a lot more money and effort on their part to raise the kid, and no, I don't mind helping for things like schools because I have a direct interest in the health of society. Plus, the child will most likely pay it back one day anyway. Everyone benefits from an educated populace, but very, very few benefit from something like Viagra. Why should I have to pay it? I shouldn't.
I don't think performance drugs are the issue here... unless I'm mistaken? Things like condoms are the issue and should be freely available. I don't mind throwing in my fifty cents.
I would pay any price to keep some people's sperm out of a woman's body. *cough*arrogantselfishasswithnothingtoaddtodebate/namebeginswithS*cough*

it is. It is also slang for someone who picks up prostitutes. I always thought it was funny.
It's totally apt, too, if you ask prostitutes what they think of their customers.

I would pay any price to keep some people's sperm out of a woman's body. *cough*arrogantselfishasswithnothingtoaddtodebate/namebeginswithS*cough*And that's your decision. Leave me to mine. :)

I would pay any price to keep some people's sperm out of a woman's body. *cough*arrogantselfishasswithnothingtoaddtodebate/namebeginswithS*cough*
If only morals could block sperm like a good solid piece of rubber.

And that's your decision. Leave me to mine. :)
Oh, don't worry about me and my aggressive opinions. The only opinions that should matter to you are the IRS and your state's tax authority, since these condoms would be paid for with tax dollars. I'll leave you to argue about "the undeserving poor" with them. :)

If only morals could block sperm like a good solid piece of rubber.
Too true. Morals have to be the most useless sex myth since withdrawal.

Too true. Morals have to be the most useless sex myth since withdrawal.

LOL! True.

Too true. Morals have to be the most useless sex myth since withdrawal.
What is fact, though: Morals give you hairy palms.

What is fact, though: Morals give you hairy palms.
Really? Thanks for the tip. Now I won't bother to try to get any. ;)

Really? Thanks for the tip. Now I won't bother to try to get any. ;)
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
That's what I say -- every time, baby. :D

politicians are the ultimate whores
THAT'S IT'S THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT!

As I see it, the "sexually-active woman = whore, sexually active man = john" argument has merit if, and only if all human interaction boils down to a form of economic transaction. This may not be as far-fetched as it sounds - some of the favor trading seen in friendships and other social interactions seems rather reminscient of long-term business contracts.

Regardless, the Representative quoted in the first paragraph is wrong either way - after all, everyone knows that low prices are good for the economy! :D

So they'll have a Stock Market soon?

"Quick Sell the stock on *****! She got Knocked up!"