Catherine Hakim

https://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/misogynist-academic-working-for-neoliberal-think-tank-thinks-decriminalising-the-sex-industry-will-lower-rape-rates/

The academic in question is Catherine Hakim, who is evidently still trying to push her bizarre and misogynistic theory of ‘erotic capital’ onto the world and has teamed up with the right-wing neoliberal think tank Institute of Economic Affairs to try to do it.

Hakim’s theory is basically this: men want sex, women don’t, so women should sell it to men (or something like that, her ideas don’t seem to be very well thought out).

Hakim must think rape is about men not being able to control their sexuality, rather than it being a premeditated act of dominance – why else argue that a ‘sexual outlet’ in prostitution would help lower rates? The argument here is contradictory, she claims that porn and prostitution do no social harm, porn is freely available, so why still all the rapes?

Hakim/IEA are obviously trying to ride on Amnesty’s coattails to publicise their report. The quality of the research must be dire, Hakim claims that rape has gone up in Sweden post-abolitionist model, it hasn’t, reporting has gone up, plus the legal definition of rape is wider in Sweden, so more things get recorded. There is an estimated reporting rate of 20% in Sweden, which is poor, but still twice the reporting rate in the UK.

Hakim also claims that Spain has very low rates of rape. I have downloaded her report from the IEA, searched through the document for the term ‘spain’ and found no source for her claim, she also says in the same paragraph (on p27), that Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand have “exceptionally low rates for rape and sexual assault” she doesn’t make it clear whether she is talking actual numbers of rapes (which can be estimated by crime surveys) or reported rapes, neither does she acknowledge that rape is vastly under-reported everywhere.

In the same paragraph she blames Sweden’s high number of reported rapes on Sweden having “a profoundly sex-negative politically correct culture” and emphasises that the increase in reported rapes are what she calls “date rapes” – she is insinuating that it is all prudish women ‘crying rape’.

[EDIT: Re-reading this, she is saying that Sweden’s abolitionist approach to prostitution and ‘sex negativity’ is directly responsible for date rape – so she is saying that men are committing rape because prudish, repressed women aren’t putting out they way they should, and men then just can’t help but rape them.]

Hakim was disowned by the LSE after the publication of Honey Money, she’s obviously found her level among the neoliberals.

Hey, Amnesty International, and other sex industry advocates, these are your natural allies!

http://theantifeminist.com/academic-argues-prostitution-should-be-legalized-due-to-lack-of-sex-for-modern-men-femiservative-disagrees/

Telegraph writer Rebecca Reid vents her fury over a (female) academic’s call for prostitution to be legalized on the grounds of a ‘male sexual deficit’.  What the academic (Catherine Hakim) means by this is that women have traditionally barted sex for monetry and other reward.  Reluctantly, as women in general are not as horny as men.  Sex for women is a tool, whereas sex for men is a need.  Unfortunately, due to ‘female emancipation’, women no longer have the need to barter their bodies for financial compensation, leading to a lack of availability for sex for men, and the consequent need to redress this by legalizing prostitution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/11786742/Prostitution-row-Sex-deficit-what-about-us-horny-women.html (may be behind paywall)

Hakim postulates that prostitution should be fully legalised – to many a perfectly reasonable stance on the debate. But it’s her reasoning that makes the suggestion painfully offensive.

Disinterested in the potential social, economic and health benefits of legalising sex work, Hakim suggests that prostitution should be legalised, because the empowerment of women has created what she terms a “male sex deficit.”

In short because men need sex and modern women aren’t providing it.

What selfish creatures we’ve become. All that working and voting and striving for equality? Well apparently it’s led to an international blue-balls crisis that only legalised prostitution can cure….

… Hakim believes that as women become more empowered, and therefore more financially independent, they are likely to withdraw sexual availability further. She writes that the “male sex deficit” is likely to grow in the 21st century, as women become increasingly economically independent and withdraw from “sexual markets and relationships that they perceive to offer unfair bargains”.

Which tells you everything you need to know about her attitude towards sex.

No wonder she wants to legalise prostitution. She seems to think every sexually active woman already is one.

And of course, she is correct in that assumption – all women are essentially prostitutes, and feminism is a prostitute’s trade union/cartel which operates to prevent competition and to artificially keep the price of sex high.

A few of the reader’s comments below the article are priceless…

telegraph-comments

Comment: Always present both sides of the debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s