Archive | Sex Workers RSS feed for this section

Slutty feminist WOMEN with fucked up personal lives are heroes. Slutty feminist MEN with fucked up personal lives are mentally ill traitors. Really now, Hugo, you didn’t see this coming?

3 Aug

It’s interesting to me to see the compassionate response the complete meltdown of male feminist Hugo Schwyzer has elicited from the very men he has repeatedly attacked for their supposed “misogyny” and hatred of women.


Paul Elam at A Voice for Men expresses his sorrow at the mess Hugo has found himself in, and places enormous truth value on Hugo’s claims that he suffers from a fairly serious mental health problem.

To be completely honest, for the first time I actually feel sympathy for this troubled soul. His unchecked sociopathy and childlike lack of governance over his base impulses have led him to a place few gender ideologues will ever go: To simultaneous personal and professional destruction.

William Pierce at The Spearhead has similar thoughts:  Hugo has some crazy in his pants, and while Pierce doesn’t demonstrate quite the compassion that Paul does, he takes the prospect of Schwyzer being suicidal quite seriously, although he is quick to place the responsibility right where it belongs. Fair enough.  Men do commit suicide at alarmingly high rates that amount to a national healthcare crisis.

Finally, I’d like to point out how topsy-turvy things are when we have male feminists fooling around with porn stars and flying to Ukraine (Lord knows what Hugo was up to there) while manosphere writers cause scandals by settling down in monogamous relationships. It’s a crazy world out there…

Hugo, when you behave in this manner, it isn’t your critics who are causing your problems: it’s you.

I’m not criticizing any man who lines up behind Hugo, or demonstrates empathy or concern.  In fact, it’s a pretty terrific example of exactly how NOT cold-hearted and quasi-violent men who question feminist ideology are towards those who routinely attempt to shame them into silence.


When a man is hurting, other men at least pause to consider that someone here is hurting.

That’s a pretty beautiful sentiment.

When it comes to Hugo, I don’t share it.  Not for one second.  I think Hugo is being a total pussy and missing out on a fantastic opportunity to point out the fucking hypocrisy of the ideology he has thrown himself behind professionally and personally.

step off

What Hugo should be saying is “Step off, bitches.  You do the same shit and spin it as liberation and freedom. My personal life is none of your goddamn business”.

Let’s start with the Grande Dame of feminism herself:  Simone de Beauvoir.  She supposedly had an “open relationship” with Jean Paul Sartre, and she pursued him for her entire life.


Yet in this lifelong relationship of supposed equals, he, it turned out, was far more equal than she was. It was he who engaged in countless affairs, to which she responded on only a few occasions with longer-lasting passions of her own. Between the lines of her fiction and what are in effect six volumes of autobiography, it is also evident that De Beauvoir suffered deeply from jealousy. She wanted to keep the image of a model life intact. There were no children. They never shared a house and their sexual relations were more or less over by the end of the war, though for much of their life and certainly at the last, they saw each other daily.

Is de Beauvoir a pathetic simpleton who can’t get it through her head that her cheating genius will never, ever ruck up with a ring and a dress?  Is she mentally ill to allow her life to be dictated by a man who openly sleeps with other women while she seethes at home alone with jealousy?  Does anyone question her feminism because she plays the role of the dupe?  All her passions governed by one man, whom she cannot have?

Nope.  She’s a goddamn hero.


Erica Jong launched sluttiness as a virtue in 1971 with her book Fear of Flying.  Married four times, she reveled in the fuck and run mentality.

“The zipless fuck is absolutely pure. It is free of ulterior motives. There is no power game . The man is not “taking” and the woman is not “giving.” No one is attempting to cuckold a husband or humiliate a wife. No one is trying to prove anything or get anything out of anyone. The zipless fuck is the purest thing there is. And it is rarer than the unicorn. And I have never had one.”

The book is one long erotic fantasy of just grabbing and banging whatever guy gets your motor running, and women embraced the challenge rather thoroughly, all the while lauding Jong for her audacity and the liberating effects of zipless, no strings attached fucking.

Eat, Love, Pray?  Hell yeah, ladies, ditch your husband and kids and go on a sex and food tour.  It’s good for you!


Sex and the City?  Ladies, if you are not cultivating greed, avarice, tons of stupidly expensive shoes and bedposts notched to toothpicks, you are doing feminism WRONG!


…to dismiss the programme entirely on the basis of its shortcomings as a feminist text would also be to lose out on what it does deliver. Just to take the most headline-grabbing example, that includes some pretty frank discussion of sex, in which female sexual pleasure and agency is obviously considered a fundamental right, rather than a privilege.

Ladies, you have a fundamental right to be a slut!  Okay, I’ll buy it.

Why don’t men have the same fundamental right?  Why doesn’t Hugo?

Granted, Hugo has been a bad, bad boy.


Sex with undergrads.

A botched attempt to murder a girlfriend while high on who the hell knows what.

Cheating on his wife with a 27 year old sex worker.  NSFW.


All the while railing against older men lusting after younger women.

And cheering for monogamy.

Yeah, so Hugo is a giant fucking hypocrite.  This is news?  The real question is why, Hugo, do your lady friends get a pass for all their shitty behavior without anyone questioning their ideological commitment or veracity, while you are driven to the brink of suicide by doing the exact same shit?

Riddle me that.

Sex with students?  When the teacher is a woman, that’s just all good fun!


“There is still a double standard out there, and it’s almost a joke — ‘Hey, he got hit on by some pretty teacher, what’s he complaining about?’ ” said Ramsland, who has worked with the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit. “Many don’t see it as much of a crime, and one of the factors that women are getting off easier is some don’t see them as a big of a threat as a man.

Getting a pass for attempted murder?  There are too many to even cite, but I love this woman who hired a HITMAN (who was really a police officer) to kill her husband and she got the full out pussy pass.  No penalty of any kind.

Women’s justice groups are urging the Supreme Court to stand by a decision that acquitted a Nova Scotia woman for trying to hire a hit man to kill her estranged husband due to years of abuse.

The abuse was so severe the husband was awarded custody of their daughter.  Must have been really bad, right?  Or complete and utter bullshit.

Older women lusting after younger men?  Why, that’s just natural!  All that young, virile sperm.  And the muscle tone of a young man!  Ooh, baby.  Bring it on.


As women decline in fertility, their sex drive gets a supercharge in order to maximize their remaining baby-making chances, new research from the University of Texas at Austin reveals. Women in the low-fertility group (ages 27-45) were much more likely to report having more sex, wanting more sex, and having more (and more intense) sexual fantasies. “If you’re trying to maximize your remaining fertility, it makes sense to seek out a younger partner because his sperm is healthier,” says lead researcher Judith Easton.

And monogamy?  What’s that?  Why should women embrace that dreary old shit?  I particularly love this story, plastered everywhere, about how Simon Cowell knocked up his best friend’s wife!  She is apparently delighted to have snagged the BabyMama Crown from the grasping hands of the other members of the Aching Ovaries Brigade.


None of these issues, or women, are being called out on feminist media sites. Nothing to see here.  La la la la.  The top stories on Jezebel?

What to do with your slobbery drunk friends?  Fuck ‘em, is basically the advice. Gosh.  Lovely to see women lining up in each other’s corners, no?

What to do when your period is so heavy you can’t go to work!  Jesus.  How heavy does it have to be? What is your job?  Shark tamer?


Lindy West, who gets bigger with every new post, had a breastmilk lollipop.  Ewww. Do you have suck everything that comes near your mouth, Lindy?  Really?  No limits at all?

The rest of the stories are just as compelling.  Jezebel has lots to say, but very little of it focuses on the issues that Hugo is being excoriated for all over the feminist media.

Hugo, ask yourself why.  Why is it that WOMEN get a pass for doing all the same shit you do, or at the very least are met with some pretty deafening silence, while YOU are basically being deprived of your ability to make a living or contribute to society in a way that you want to contribute.

Notice something else, too.

Look carefully at who came to your defence.  It wasn’t the pack of fucking bitches who are willing to toss you under the bus for committing the exact same infractions they extol when women are the protagonists.

It was men.  And a few men in particular.


You’re a fool, Hugo, if you cave into the demands that you present yourself as mentally damaged, in need of medications and self-flagellation.  Your lady friends might forgive you this time, but you will always walk that tightrope of being barely acceptable and you will always be the first one they sacrifice.

You went to the Dark Side in search of cookies, Hugo, not seeming to realize that feminists HATE cookies.

Come into the light.  We have cookies, and everything else too!


Start here.

And please, whatever you do, do not give them the satisfaction of destroying you utterly.  They won’t mourn you.  Not for one second. Don’t become another tragic statistic.  Your crimes were not crimes at all.  Being human is not a crime.

Even if you happen to be male and human at the same time.

Lots of love,


[We all survived the surgery, just so you know, and everyone is happy and healthy back at home]

Feminists agree, at least in theory, that women MUST face the consequences of deciding to have sex. No abortion, no adoption, no safe havens. And if you don’t like it, then close your legs, you whores!

15 Jun

First up, apologies to real, actual whores, who are experts in preventing pregnancies and STDs.  If, after reading this post, you lads decide to never get within ten feet of a reproductively capable woman, always keep in mind that professional ladies are there, and they are fair!  They know what they are doing, in every way that counts.  Pleasure? Check.  Pregnancy? Er, nope.  STDs?  Not likely.  You’ll need to hit up a group of middle aged swingers if you want one of those.

College girls will also deliver for you on the oozing dick front.


Do NOT be afraid to trust your average escort, gentlemen.  Know why? Because they’re PROFESSIONALS, that’s why. Screw this Alpha – Beta shit.  Be a John.  Paying a fine beats 18 years of child support, no? I’m being a bit facetious, I know.  The consequences can be much more severe, but it’s worth checking just what they are in your particular jurisdiction and weigh those against the consequences of an unintended pregnancy with your local herd of ladies.


Let’s start with a definition:




The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

We’ll keep that definition in mind as we go along.

In the New York Times this past week, Professor Laurie Schrage wants to know if forced fatherhood is a philosophically defensible position, given that reproductive autonomy and equality are such touchstone issues for feminism.  Is it fair to force men to become fathers of children they do not want and did not intend when culturally, we have agreed, that it is unacceptable to force women into such a position?

If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.

The responses at the NYT to Schrage’s question fall into three main camps:


1.  We don’t have complete and utter reproductive freedom for women, so none of this applies!  Ladies are still not allowed to waltz into clinics and abort the day before they’re due, so none of this applies anyways, lalalalalalala I can’t hear you.


Don’t think this issue can adequately be approached until all women have the right to end their pregnancy in a safe manner at a respectable facility. Until then discussing men’s rights confuses the issue.


2.  If you don’t want babies, don’t have sex, you man-whores!


Men have the ultimate control over pregnancy and fatherhood. They’ve always had it. Keep your sperm out of women’s vaginas. Period. End of story. Historically, men have always been able to walk away from parental responsibility. Now they can’t. Tough noogies. It’s not forced anything. They just have to choose to be responsible a little earlier.


3.  If you consent to sex, you consent to all the possible outcomes of sex.

CherylLake County, IL

“In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity.”

I beg to disagree. That is EXACTLY what consenting to sex means.

You don’t get on an airplane expecting it to crash, but you are giving implied consent to that possibility by stepping on the plane. It implies you are willing to accept the risk of undertaking that action. If you can’t accept that risk, or the consequences are too great, you don’t fly.

When you have sex, you know that a pregnancy is a possible outcome, even with birth control. If you don’t want to take that risk, you don’t have sex! If you ignore that possibility, have sex and it results in a pregnancy, that’s the chance you took.

Pretty much the exact arguments come up at Jezebel:

DuchessOfDorkUMeher Ahmad671L




Thank you


Let’s take all this at face value.  Okay, we agree 100%.  If you have sex, you are required to face the consequences, no matter what your personal preferences.

Let’s start with reproductive freedom.  Women don’t have unlimited, completely untrammeled rights to destroy the child within their body at whim.  There are some very good reasons for that, but leaving all that aside, let’s take a look at what opportunities men have to control the reproductive tissues of their own bodies.

In other words, male birth control.  Men have basically two choices:




With proper knowledge and application technique—and use at every act of intercourse—women whose partners use male condoms experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate with perfect use and a 15% per-year pregnancy rate with typical use

Look at that statement carefully.  Even when we discuss men’s birth control, men’s bodies, men protecting themselves against the consequences of pregnancy, the whole argument is framed in terms of women.  WTF?  How fucking hard is it to write MEN using condoms  have female partners  who experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate with perfect use and a 15% per-year pregnancy rate with typical use.


Vasectomy, which is a surgical procedure involving a scalpel applied to men’s bodies (which birth control method for women involves a scalpel, again?), and which is only reversible at significant expense, still has a failure rate of 1 in 100!


So if a man doesn’t care to have children with YOU, he should get sterilized and never have any children ever?  Oh, right.  That seems fair.  How about we cut women’s fallopian tubes? Perfectly reasonable measure, no?

The reality is that no matter how careful, no matter how responsible, no matter how diligent and conscientious a man is about birth control, failure is possible.  If we are waiting for conditions to be absolutely perfect before we discuss a particular topic, we will wait forever.

And isn’t that the point of argument one?  I refuse to deal with this issue.  No way.  Not talking. I can’t tackle the actual argument, so I’m just going to pretend you aren’t here.


Preposterous.  Fraught conversations still need to take place.  Welcome to being a grown-up.

Argument number two is actually completely hilarious, and it stuns me that anyone, but feminists in particular, would give it a spin.

If you don’t want a child, don’t have sex?


Okie-dokie, whores.  Turnabout is fair play.  If men are REQUIRED by law to face the music, then so are you.  And the argument that women’s bodies are sacrosanct and pregnancy is asymmetrical is nothing more than sophistry.  Turning over a significant portion of your income to a woman who may or may not use that income to provide for a child you did not intend and do not want has a dramatic impact on the well-being of the man required to make remittance, particularly when that man is already poor!

Indeed, Scrage quotes another Professor, Elizabeth Brake, who has precisely that point to make, and she chimed in at the NYT with the following comment:


Elizabeth BrakeTempe, AZNYT Pick

My article, which Prof. Shrage cites, doesn’t argue against legal child support but against one reason often given for it. The political point is that “a just law of child support … must be responsive to the economic situation of individual fathers.”

Women who are pregnant unintentionally have a few choices to mitigate against the consequences of bearing a child:  abortion, adoption, legal surrender.  Women are permitted to end the potential child’s life, and from 1973 to 2008, more than 50 million potential children were destroyed in the United States.

Unsurprisingly, the rate of adoption declined dramatically once abortion became a viable option.  Nevertheless, in 2000, the US Census found that more than 2 million children were identified as “adopted”.


Safe haven laws, which allow WOMEN to legally surrender all parental rights with no obligations and no subsequent responsibilities are in effect in all 50 states.

If we are going to have EQUAL reproductive rights for men and women, then all these options are EITHER available to BOTH men and women, or to NEITHER.  How would that work, in practical application?

Men can’t physically be pregnant.  Are we going to allow men to force women to abort children on the basis of genetic relationship?  That seems like a pretty scary proposition, although from a philosophical point of view, why not?  If you are going to be held  legally responsible for any humans containing your DNA, why should you not be able to force an abortion?  It’s your DNA.  You own it.  The Supreme Court recently ruled that human DNA cannot be patented. It belongs to the individual person, and if you do NOT consent to that DNA being deployed in the creation of another human, you should have the right to have the person terminated, within the limitations of the law, no?


Unfortunately, the potential human on the butcher’s block is a combination of DNA, and there is an unavoidable King Solomon’s dilemma.  In the name of equality, neither the mother nor the father can unilaterally decide if the child lives or dies.  That takes abortion as an option off the table, unless both DNA contributors consent.

So men cannot force women to abort, but neither can women abort a child the father wishes to keep.  Fair is fair.  If he can’t force you to bear his biological offspring when you do not wish to, then you cannot destroy offspring for whom he is prepared to accept full responsibility.

Father Cradling Newborn Baby In Hospital

Oh dear.  That kind of equality sucks, now doesn’t it.  But remember ladies, if you don’t want to have a baby, don’t have sex, you sluts!

The same must be true for adoption:  you cannot surrender a child for adoption without the father’s consent.  That is already technically true, but there is a way around that for women: don’t identify the father.

In some cases, the women genuinely does NOT know the identity of the father.  This is particularly true in cases of rape.  But there is little point in making an exception for rape, since all that will happen is that women will claim they were raped.  Unverifiable.  A child cannot be aborted or adopted without the consent of the biological father, no matter what the circumstances of conception.  Full stop.

Oh, boo hoo!  This reproductive equality thing is looking worse and worse.

Needless to say, safe haven laws must apply equally to both men and women, as well.  If a woman cannot identify the father, or does not have the consent of the father to surrender the baby, she is guilty of criminal abandonment and should face the full legal consequences of her actions.

Now here is where the argument gets interesting:  safe haven laws are designed to keep women from strangling their newborns and tossing them in the trash.

Supporters of safe-haven laws claim that the laws save lives by encouraging parents to surrender infants safely instead of aborting, killing, or discarding them.

Cute that Wikipedia uses the word “parents”, when they really mean “mothers”.


Women who have a an actual, physical, living, breathing completely separate human being who DO NOT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY of caring for that human being are entitled to surrender all legal obligations towards that human and simply walk away.

Accidents happen. Mistakes occur.  Unintended consequences turn into little tiny people who are entitled to love and care and attention and life itself.  And if women can’t, or won’t or don’t want to meet the needs of this new little person THEY CREATED, they can walk away and never look back.  Their biological ties to that person are irrelevant.

Men deserve the same right.  Biology is irrelevant.  Just as any pregnant woman has the right to terminate her legal responsibility for that child, men should have the right to terminate their own legal responsibility.  The practical reality is not even that hard to envision.  Any woman who finds herself pregnant needs to know that the father of the child has the right to disavow paternity in a legal context.

Do you accept responsibility for this child?

A woman must make her decision about whether or not to have the child based on the knowledge that her decision is hers, and ONLY hers.  She does not have the right to unilaterally impose her will on any other adult, no matter what the biological relationship.  The fact that she is pregnant does not make her special, and should not give her any special rights to inflict potentially ruinous consequences on a man who made the mistake of having sex with her.  Not unless she’d care to face the same consequences.

Being a parent should be a choice.  It’s either compulsory for both, or elective for both.

Equal or special.  Pick one.

Lots of love,


Mom and Dad pissed that their daughter earns thousands of dollars a day legally. Also, Harvard economists are retarded. Dismal science, indeed.

2 May



On the upside, NO KATE HARDING!




So, before the pukefest at Chateau JB, we were marveling over the wisdom of Emily Yoffe, who writes as Dear Prudence over at


The first letter in the column was rather interesting, too.


My only daughter recently came out to me as a stripper. For years she had said she worked in a standard office job. I feel as if I’ve been slapped in the face for all the years she lied to her father and me. I love her so much and this revelation has turned my world upside down. I had to tell my husband and he is furious and refuses to talk to her. Not only am I unsure as how to take this, but I don’t know how to handle my husband. I don’t want my family torn apart by this and I do not support her career choice. Help?


I wonder if Mom and Dad have seen this?


one night


THAT’S ONE NIGHT. And perfectly legal, in case Mom and Dad need reminding. Kind of like, oh, working for Enron or Lehman’s, except without devastating the retirement plans and savings of all the employees, and basically destroying the economy.


Bankers? Okie-dokie!


Strippers? Good god almighty NO WAY!!!


Why not? What, exactly is the objection to young ladies displaying their bodies?


Nothing to see here, right? Rapey rape rape protesters. Or whatever. All’s good here.




Mr. Putin, you sir, are an asshole. Here are my tits to prove it!




All y’all are assholes in the Ukraine. Let me paint my breasts to demonstrate how so!




Fur is bad! Here are some more naked ladies to make the point!




Female genital mutilation is bad. Let me soak my crotch in corn syrup and jello powder to prove it! Circumcision? What’s that? Shut up already. We’re only protesting the mutilation of GIRLS. Penis owners will have to take care of themselves. Jello dick, anyone?




Bullfighting is bad. More boobs!


bull fighting


Cellophane packaging is bad? Wait…wha?!?! Oh never mind. Boobies!!!




We need more bicycle lanes. For naked riders with piss poor attitudes, apparently.




Uhm, I have no idea. Something in SanFrancisco is bad. Maybe that bush? Who knows.


san fran


So all that shit is fine. Empowering even. Rah! You go grrrrrrrl!


This is good. Oh yeah.




This is even better.




This is nigh unto perfect!




But this!







What is the difference between all the pictures that precede the one above?


Desire. Specifically, male desire. The “protest” pictures are designed to taunt, to flaunt, to provoke. But not a positive reaction. On the contrary. They are aggressive and designed to enflame, but not in way that admires or invites desire. They are meant to aggravate rather than alleviate.


And you know, fair enough. If yanking your tits out makes you feel powerful, go for it. Bounce those puppies from here to Mars and back if you think it helps whatever cause you are supporting (although a good bra would offer hella more support!).




(That bra is hand’s down the best sports bra ever!!!)


But why should we admire, esteem, even valorize topless fur protesters and then bring down the wrath of pearl-clutching god on young ladies who decide to bare their breasts and bodies for the purpose of gratifying male desire?


Would Mom and Dad freak the fuck out if their daughter said she was a full-time activist for PETA and regularly posed naked? I doubt it.




Instead, she gets on a stage every night and dances to music while removing her clothes to the delight of her customers. Her male customers. Who pay her handsomely for the pleasure of seeing her body.




Being a stripper doesn’t make you a woman of loose morals. It doesn’t make you psychologically damaged. It doesn’t make you a crazy slut in any way, shape, or form. Are there crazy sluts who strip?


Oh hell yeah. Show me any job that doesn’t have a couple crazy sluts tossed in the mix. Whether you stock shelves at Walmart, work at an accounting firm or fold shirts at the Gap, there are gonna be crazy sluts.




Stripping is no different, but if you think every woman peeling off her pasties on a pyrotechnic stage is a crazy slut, you have got another think coming.


Things You Should Know About Strippers


  1. A third of them are paying tuition with that cash
  2. Most of them just want to dance
  3. 10 % of them are married
  4. 20% have dated customers




In a way, it’s kind of understandable why Daddy isn’t thrilled his baby is stripping, but that kind of falls in line with Daddy not being thrilled that his baby might be getting used by a man and getting her heart broken. The football Captain she stripped for in private could be a douchebag, and maybe that lawyer she was dating, too.


Actually that lawyer for sure. Yech. No lawyers!! Jesus, have some standards.






Daddy needs to take a step back and consider the fact that a woman who is stripping to pay her tuition is, in fact, making a very smart investment. Her sexual appeal is at its peak, paying interest on loans SUCKS, and avoiding debt at all costs is a very smart thing to do, depending on the ROI, of course.



Now, let’s be clear. Debt, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, depending on the RETURN ON INVESTMENT you will get from taking on that debt load. An extended payment plan on a loan of $25 000 will result in a student repaying $52 000. $25 000/ year over the course of a four year degree and you are repaying $208 000!!! And when you used that money to buy yourself a women’s studies degree, which will earn you around $15 000/year as a Starbucks barista, and it will take you a good 14 years just to break even.


Hey! Good investment!




People are afraid of debt (except for all the people who SHOULD be – yes, I’m talking to you, idiot humanities majors), but that is actually a very short-sighted approach to wealth building.


I know, I know. Every head up their ass economic pundit out there disagrees with me. Well, guess what? They’re all wrong.


Here’s a couple of jerkwads you should NOT TRUST ever.




They’re a couple of Harvard economists who are pretty much singlehandedly responsible for the “austerity” measures that have been sweeping across the landscape of modern Western democracies, based on the idea that once you have a debt ratio that is more than 90% of GDP, growth slows dramatically.


Apparently, they never heard of the Marshall Plan.


So according to these two, the best way to get economic growth chugging is to restrict the supply of money, fail to invest in public infrastructure and let all the bridges and highways crumble into rubble, and pay down debt rather than get money circulating through job creation.


Kind of like saying the best way to ensure your home increases in value is to never do a lick of maintenance, but pay down the mortgage as fast as you can. Don’t use your money to replace the leaky roof and upgrade the furnace, just pay off that mortgage. There might be some good reasons to do that, but they won’t increase the value of your home. And if that leaky roof ends up as dry rot, you will actually have DECREASED the value of your home, although, hey, it will be paid off!


Harvard economists, like all economists everywhere (except maybe Captain Capitalism) can spit out some fancy-pants language and back that up with some even fancier mathematical models, but their advice comes down to bullshit the average person can see through in ten seconds.


Using clear, sharp analysis and comprehensive data, Reinhart and Rogoff document that financial fallouts occur in clusters and strike with surprisingly consistent frequency, duration, and ferocity. They examine the patterns of currency crashes, high and hyperinflation, and government defaults on international and domestic debts–as well as the cycles in housing and equity prices, capital flows, unemployment, and government revenues around these crises. While countries do weather their financial storms, Reinhart and Rogoff prove that short memories make it all too easy for crises to recur.


Sharp analysis and comprehensive data?


Oh, oops. They made a tiny mistake in that comprehensive data, and left out Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Denmark. Spreadsheet fuck-up. Forgot to capture a few cells.


That can’t have any real impact, right? I mean Canada and Australia only contribute most of the natural resource commodities. How valuable can that be?


When that tiny little error is accounted for, instead of seeing -.01% growth at a 90% debt to GDP ratio, we get +2.2% growth rate.




Ask any person with a house if they should replace a leaky roof or pay down the mortgage in order to increase the value of their home, and you will be hardpressed to find anyone who doesn’t see the answer. Maybe if Harvard economists live in that house, you’ll see them running to the bank to pay the mortgage instead of hiring a roofing crew, but those people are clearly a special kind of genius.




Aside: ALWAYS HIRE A ROOFING CREW. Mr. JB, JudgyAsshole and my brother decided to replace the roof on our house last summer. Mr. JB ended up “managing”, which basically consisted of wandering around with a cold beer yelling at the guys to put four nails in every shingle, and JudgyAsshole and my brother did all the work. I’m not sure it ended up being any cheaper after they both insisted on being paid in cases of Scotch.




The difference between paying off the mortgage and fixing the roof has to do with time and value. The value of the house has nothing to do with how much is left on the mortgage and everything to do with whether or not the roof leaks. And the roof problem is not going to get better over time, it will get worse.


This brings us back to our stripper. She has something of value that is peaking, and that value is not going to get better over time, it will get worse. So sad, too bad.


Now, the traditional feminist explanation for why stripping is bad and de-valuing is that men always have the upper hand in the power equation between the sexes. That’s called “patriarchy”.


All men, everywhere, at all times, are more powerful than all women, everywhere, at all times. Well, except for all those women who are more powerful than men, but ssssssh. Don’t complicate the argument with facts. You know, women like Angela Merkel, Hilary Clinton, Dilma Rouseff, Melinda Gates, Jill Abramson, Sonia Ghandi, Michelle Obama, Christine Lagarde, Janet Napolitano, Sheryl Sandberg …..


That is WHY the ladies have to pay the men to watch them take off their clothes.


Oh wait. No, it’s the other way around. Men pay women for the pleasure of seeing them dance in very little clothing. Who has the power again?


The reality is that young women, especially young fit women, have an enormous power they can exploit for significant gains, and that power makes an older generation of ladies very, very uncomfortable. Firstly, it does not fit with the powerless victim narrative and secondly, it is a power than wanes as times goes on. Sexual appeal follows an economics, and the value of one’s sexual appeal will depend enormously on the investment one puts in to it.


Which makes it impossible to escape the reality that women have quantifiable, tangible sexual value.


What did Prudence say to our stripper’s concerned mother?


I understand that hearing that your daughter makes her living by taking off her clothes for leering men is a shock, but think of what it took for your daughter to finally reveal the truth. You and her father need to talk out your hurt and pain together, so that you can then go to your daughter and jointly say how hard you know it must have been for her to tell you this and that you appreciate her honesty. Then you can start a conversation about her life. The point you want to make—and which surely she knows—is that her job is not a long-term sustainable one. Say that you two want to support her in helping to figure out how to integrate back into the more traditional workplace so that she can find a more satisfying career. So put aside the judgment and the outrage. Slapping down your daughter will only make her regret coming clean.


Except for the “leering men” bullshit, Prudie doesn’t do a bad job here. She gets one thing absolutely right: the job isn’t a long-term sustainable one. The value of the income-generating asset will depreciate over time, but that doesn’t make this a bad choice at all.




It all depends on how the income is being invested. Paying tuition is an excellent use of the money generated by a young woman’s sexual desirability. Just please.


Not economics.


Or law.


And by the looks of it, you should steer clear of Harvard.


Lots of love,



%d bloggers like this: