Executive Summary: Single mother of four young kids has two jobs (barmaid and elder-care worker), but can’t keep her head above water financially. Then she quits both, starts her own work-from-home business, and makes literally thousands per week.
Here’s the story. I have no problem with this, but no doubt somebody will.
This is the lady in question:
This kinda follows on from my long-ago post about changing my position on prostitution. If all she has are those outstanding attributes, and guys are willing to pay to look at them, then why not?
I just hope that she’s putting money away for the future, because as fine as those attributes are, they are very much a depreciating asset.
You can throw your morals and ethics away Kim, and you can say what you want… but that isn’t good for the family unit. If mom goes and lives in the fast lane, the kids will too. You have accused me of being a prude in the past, but I don’t care. drugs, divorce, prostitution, feminism, sexual perversion and all the other liberal hobby horses are hell on the family. And like it or not, the ‘slippery slope’ argument holds. Once one pillar of the family falls, the rest will eventually follow. America has thrown out its morals and ethics wholesale and it shows. When families fail, the community fails. When enough communities fall, the state falls. When the state falls, the country falls. Your president and his son are pedos and your country is facing ruin. It didn’t get there in one big leap; it did it in tiny, small increments. You decide prostitution is fine one day, the next day somebody else gets pot legalized (because it’s just a harmless herb!) – and a couple decades later mom’s are taking their toddlers to “Drag Queen Story Hour” at the public library, and the local commie politician wants free shooting galleries for addicts and the cops defunded. Or divorced husbands are getting sued by their families to pay for “gender reassignment surgery” for the kids. None of this is happening by accident.
You can tell yourself whatever you need to, but that is not the proper way to protect our women and children. If she had a proper family, they would step forward to support her while she gets her life in order and finds another man. God knows – the one she had was probably good, and she did the father a favour when they split. Neoliberal family values turn women into whores, lesbians, feminists and other cankles. While you were looking at her tits – I was noticing her eyes. If you can’t see the ‘batshit crazy’ in them, you’re blind. What kind of man endorses this?
Maybe in the scheme of things this one is harmless… but how many increments down the road are guys like Biden’s son, snorting coke off a 14 year old prostitute’s ass?
The kids these days positively hate boomers and when they talk like this I don’t blame them one bit.
Ferg,
I never much cared about other people’s opinion of me anyway. And long ago I realized that people are going to do what they’re going to do, when faced with financial hardship.
I remember talking to a Depression-era couple who lived in Kansas during the Dust Bowl, and to make ends meet they made moonshine, which was of course strictly forbidden during Prohibition. They used their children to make deliveries of the stuff on horseback, because the cops would be unlikely to suspect them. From a moral perspective, involving preteen children in a criminal enterprise is far worse than selling views of your body on the Internet.
It’s a fact of the modern age — sad, but there it is — that sex is no longer special. I’m not even sure that the “sanctity” of sex ever really existed other than as a feature of middle-class morality during the late 19th- and 20th centuries anyway. It has certainly never been a factor in either the lower- or upper classes, regardless of historical era.
And I’m not interested in “protecting” anybody from sin or vice, especially when they’re faced with realities that I’m not.
This is a tough topic. I probably qualify as a prude in Kim’s book, but I’d like to think I’m at least an objective and open-minded prude.
I know that the “sanctity” of sex over the ages has received more lip service [sic] than observance, but I agree with Ferg’s view of the consequences of not even pretending it’s real.
But, putting “sanctity” in quotes is kind of missing the point. It comes across as a swipe at religion (which you’re free to make) while avoiding psychological and medical dangers. We know that sex is fraught with emotional, psychological, and medical effects that can be very good in some circumstances and very bad in others. And, honestly, we know what those circumstances are in both directions.
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: “Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such; but I entertain’d an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them, yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us, in their own natures, all the circumstances of things considered.”
People say you can’t legislate morality, but I think an awful lot of legislation is legislating morality: don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t commit perjury, etc. Those strictures, when followed, lead to an arguably better and more stable society. Should it be legal or illegal? I’m always torn on that question where issues like this come up because a lot of the time the harm is harder to demonstrate definitively. Anything involving kids deserves summary hanging, of course, but with adults it’s a harder call for me to make.
So, while I find prostitution, hooking up, selling views of your butthole, etc. to be morally objectionable, I also believe a strong case can be made that they produce a degraded and unstable society as Ferg argued. So, we should strongly discourage that behavior rather than lauding it.
We take liberals to task on their programs all the time saying intentions don’t matter; results do. We should be willing to look at our own proposals under the same lens, or we leave ourselves open to a charge of hypocrisy.
Sure, Kim. I do not mean to come across as a dink. You may be right, in this one case. You may not. I did not mean to lash out at you; I am just throwing this out because I disagree with it. I disagreed with it back when I was an agnostic and I disagree with it more as a new Christian – so I admit my bias. Having said that:
Here’s what I see… those “pussified males” you wrote about 20 years ago didn’t just happen. They were made. Consider the lonely, cellar dwelling incel that is so common that he is a trope today. He hides in the basement playing video games. If he comes out? Welp – “mom” is now a slut getting pumped and dumped on a daily basis. But she is not the only social force acting against him: our lawmakers are now sexual degenerates that want to castrate him and turn him into a girl. Others want to sodomize him and want their perversion legalized because everyone knows that pedophilia ‘is just another sexual orientation’. Others want to blame him for racism, patriarchy, and all kinds of other new ills. How can that kid ever expect the stabilizing influence of a father if his mother is a whore? Low men might screw her, but no man in his right mind will marry her. This is just one rampant problem in our culture and society today. Books could be written on what this stuff is doing to our daughters. And now – granddaughters. When you hurt one gender this way, it ultimately hurts them both. And so it’s done, one small bump at a time. We geriatrics are only looking at one facet of the prostitution debate – there are dozens and some of them have had debilitating effects.
This is all the result of incrementalism and the refusal of us to draw a line against it. At some point, a line has to be drawn. You don’t have to be a prude to see what’s going on and how slack morals are working against us.
We got here one baby step at a time, by making exceptions and doing what was right for ourselves instead of what was right. Chesterton’s fence was there for a reason. I personally would like to see our women and children protected, and those that would prey on them punished.
Perhaps one day you could do an update on Pussification, Kim. With 20 years in the rearview, I’d be most interested in your observations.
Weetabix,
You make some very good points.
Is sex just another voluntary transactional service like accounting, cutting hair and such or does it have more personal meaning? that seems to be the question facing society.
On the one hand you have libertarian folks who say that it should be treated as a transactional commodity just like landscaping services for someone’s property while on the other hand folks say that sex acts should be something special.
JQ
JQ,
A lot of libertarians appear to believe the world should be like they wish it were. But it isn’t always. I’m libertarian-leaning, but I also understand that in the real world actions have secondary, tertiary, and unintended consequences.
Sex clearly has lots of emotions involved. Just think of Taylor Swift songs. I’m not aware that I’ve heard any, but I understand they’re all boyfriend angst.
The language surrounding it is pretty muddled, which doesn’t help. I think it’s best when it’s special, but “special” or “sanctified” may put too much mystique and pressure on it. Maybe that pressure leads people to shuck off any admission of the characteristics that make it unique? Just speculating idly.
But, transactional like landscaping? Probably not, unless you’re discussing Brazilian waxing (moundscaping, maybe?)
Weetabix
Wheetabix,
I agree with you. Libertarianism has some good ideas on the broad strokes but their ideas often don’t work in reality.
JQ
I think that the Great Neoliberal Social Experiment has run its course. The case can be made that the pussification of our young men corresponds to the ‘slutification’ of our young women.
There is a generational consideration going on here too. Being an Olde Phart, our esteemed blog host will look at issues like prostitution, divorce, and female empowerment much differently than a Handsome Young Spring Chicken like me will. Rampant divorce might look like a great deal to him and a way to escape an otherwise unhappy marriage. Through my eyes, as a kid growing up in that – I saw first hand the adverse effect on children. We used to call the single parent family what it actually was – a broken home. The downsides of the broken home could be mitigated for us because we had fall backs in organizations like the Boy Scouts or Minor Hockey and Baseball. The effects of divoerce on young men today are catastrophic – the Scouts got shut down by pedophiles/homosexuals, and undermined by wahmen that did not think that their sons deserved their own space and must share them with girls. Those organizations are not available to kids today. In Kim’s day, the Battle Of The Sexes was a cute joke. Today it is all out warfare, and the fallout from it is widespread and noticeable. Like it or not – the nuts and bolts are coming off the culture and society that hold us together, and our cultural differences are widening to the point where I can see open warfare over our morals and ethics.
With 4 kids (from God knows how many potential donors). It sounds like she’s figured out a way to get paid for what she was giving away for free before. Hell she might even get to run for US VicePresident.
I used to be uber-libertarian when it came to the world’s oldest profession, until I learned how many of those women – and now children, of both genders – wind up being trafficked. Hopefully this gal is smart enough not to stray from the ‘look don’t touch’ lane.
If she’s getting thousands per week (as claimed) just for a peep show, there’s no reason for her to hit the streets, so to speak. However, let us not forget the endless capacity of human beings to fuck things up.
What I want to know is where do you find the photos of all these skanky looking women.
The one in question here is a great example of “Massive Mammaries” that are WAY out of proportion to an otherwise decent figure.
But then you get a look at the face.
Never mind that she appears to put her makeup on with a mason’s trowel. Those eyes – crazy doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Run. Run fast and run far.
my first reaction was Dee Schnieder with a rack but that’s rude to Dee Schnieder
JQ
Kim said “I just hope that she’s putting money away for the future, because as fine as those attributes are, they are very much a depreciating asset.”
She bought her kid a pony. A fucking PONY? A horse’s proper upkeep and housing is more expensive than a car.
She isn’t putting diddly away in a serious fashion, and by the time her 38 DD’s sag into 48 Longs, maybe 5-8 years, she’ll be broke.
“Single mother of four…”
Is she divorced?
If not, then “I’ll take Didn’t bother with contraceptives for $600, Alex“.