pynch,

'I am not an advocate of any type of human meat-mart; but am less concerned about men doing it than women'. Of course, you've proven that very well!

'people genuinely CHOOSING to sell themselves when they have access to alternative ways of obtaining basic necessities (ie: that it's a genuine choice) and that they can also choose to leave and do something else to make a living.'

But there's the catch isn't it pynch. No women in your eyes is ever really choosing, and it's 'societal expectations' or some other external factor. But a man choosing, well, it's always a simple choice.

'My questioning intended to evoke some empathy in place of vagina-envy.'
Oh yes, there is always empathy from you for those with vaginas, even when they're making money 'exploiting' lonely men. But exploitation only ever runs one way doesn't it pynch.

The quote that started all your BS...

'the vast majority haven't gained any reward from it'
I think I've proven they are rewarded. They might not find the work 'rewarding', but neither do I find my job 'rewarding'. But it has monetary rewards, as does prostitution.

'Although the demand might not be as high'
And hence the pay and hence the viability. As I said pynch, you are absolutely terrified of accepting women ever have more opportunity than men. Even if it's to sell their bodies.

pynchme,

' If they reflect on what's involved in allowing someone else to use one's body, they might be less cavalier about insisting that others make the choice easily.'

Who said anything about a 'good deal?', or 'easily'. This is your prejudicial view of any man who dare not talk about prostitution in an 'oh the poor women' tone. You see all prostitution through a 'men exploiting women' lens. I merely pointed out the positive for women in the co-dependent relationship. How dare I!

You deliberately misrepresent the argument. The fact that women have more opportunity than men in this one aspect of society (to trade with their bodies) has even been used by feminists the world over to bemoan the misogynist and shallow nature of men. Yet you somehow find this so objectionable for it to be pointed out by a male poster, that you have to 'teach-em some empathy and make-em relate'. How arrogant.

That you feel you have to 'teach em' says a lot about your general prejudiced derogatory attitude to men, assuming they could not possibly have any empathy for the plight of many women prostitutes. You're dead wrong. Offensively so.

But in doing so at least you highlight your indifferent attitude to any men who may find themselves selling their soul for money and your complete ignorance about the added burden of sacrificing their sexual orientation and identity to do it. That you somehow pretend this is equivalent to what women experience is also offensive, but completely expected. In short, you have no idea love. I pity any male coming to you for counselling, I really do.

Pynchme

Whenever you are feeling down, at least you can take solace in the thought that at least you could make more money than Houllie as a prostitute. Im sure that will make you feel much better.

That's the problem benk, she doesn't think she can. There is no area in life where women have any advantage over men in pynchme's world. I often wonder whether if she became pregnant with a girl she would abort because she obviously thinks women are the downtrodden martyrs of society. Being female has been nothing but a curse since the dawn of time according to her. There is not one woman in this world who is better off than any man you can pick.

The prostitution is a great example, something that is normally thought of as a negative experience to attain an advantage, and she still cant even accept women have more opportunity than men in this. Until the next sexualisation of women topic that is, then she'll change her tune.