The floating brothel

It's outrageous how the modern Western society is constantly conditioning people to automatically assume that whenever there is a conflict between men and women:

1. the men are criminals,

2. the women are victims,

3. the worst kind of torture imaginable is when a woman is being fucked and she doesn't desire to be fucked.

I ran across a book titled "The Floating Brothel" or something. I skimmed it, reading a page here and a few pages there, but then I didn't buy it after all. The book is about English criminals who were exiled to Australia, then a young British colony.

The beginning of the book describes the fate of a number of people who committed one or another petty crime and were caught and spent some time in prison and were then sentenced to the exile in Australia.

The final part of the book is about the hardships the colonists faced after they had arrived in Australia.

The middle part is about the journey. A number of convicted criminals (keep in mind that the crimes might have been quite trivial by today's standards) were loaded onto a ship which set sail for Australia. Technology was not too advanced back then, so the journey was long and arduous. In particular, food was rather scarce during the journey, and now we come to the "floating brothel" part. It would appear – unsurprisingly – that some of the female passengers let the crew members fuck them in exchange for extra food. Amazingly, the author bemoans the fate of those poor women who "had to" let themselves be fucked by men they didn't fancy.

Let's examine the situation more closely and apply some elementary logic.

The first question is: why didn't the passengers get to eat as much as they wanted to? Was is because there was abundant food on the ship, but the crew members were so mean that they gave only very little to the passengers? I don't think so. Obviously it was because the ship's capacity was limited and they were able to take only so much food, so it had to be strictly rationed, so that as many people as possible would make the journey alive and reasonably healthy, and perhaps some food would remain to feed the colonists until they would be able to produce their own food.

The second question is: when a female passenger had sex with a crew member and was given some extra food as reward, where did that food come from? Did it fall from the sky? No, I don't think so. I am quite sure that it came from the same place all the other food did – from the ship's hold. Which, considering what I just said about the severe limitedness of resources, means that because of that woman getting more food, someone else got less.

So, who were the actual victims in that situation?

Was it the women who had the choice between:

a) let a perhaps-not-too-desirable man fuck them and get extra food, or

b) not do anything and get their regular food rations?

Or was it the men (and the very ugly women) who had only the choice (b), that is, who, for better or worse, had to do with their regular rations, or actually a little less than their regular rations because some of the food that was rightfully theirs was given to the whores?

For the authors (as well as the overwhelming majority of book reviewers) the answer is obvious. The victims were the women who "had to" (actually, chose to) have sex for the privilege of appropriating someone else's food.

It's, of course, the same everywhere. Women have always the option (but not the obligation) to exchange their sexual attractiveness for other goods. And still we're being drowned in feminist whining how the women are being oppressed and how women are supposed to get equal salary with men – in addition to having been born with the facilities that enable them to get a large share of men's resources by doing little more than lying on their backs. Half of the money and all the pussy – that's supposed to be equality.