Readers' Submissions

Why The Barfine Era Won’t End

  • Written by Anonymous
  • April 12th, 2016
  • 6 min read




I am provoked to reply to the annoying submission, ‘Why the Barfine Era Will End’, not because I believe that people such as Charles will ever be relieved of their ignorance, prudery and misguided thinking, but in the hope they will leave us alone to blaspheme against Carnal Sin.

First, bear with me. I am going to indulge myself in a risky denunciation of the superstition of such transgressions, which will seem a baffling thing to Charles and an extraordinary novelty to his kind; whereas, in reality, it is hardly original, once free expression of sexuality was completely natural and put into practice for centuries by all human races. Traces of it persist in the East and elsewhere, but sadly in the West these superstitions continue to suppress it in all aspects of society.

The superstition of Carnal Sin took its inspiration from a metaphysical invention of the ancient Hebrews – an anathema launched against sexuality as a whole, accompanied by ingenious disparagement and formidable punishment for those who do not accept this supernatural account of things. However, the Judeo-Christianity-Islamic ideas it spawned spread to the Europeans, and prevails strongly among the Western civilisations boldly led by the white knights of the USA with their dollars, to infect us with the aim of liberating the globe from such evil. (Apart from fucking our wives of course). Yes, some western governments will make prostitution illegal but the overall trend is towards its legalization and it never will be on the wayside (but will probably end on the kerbside) and will be still here long after we are gone no matter how well future scientist perfect the mannequin.

The traditional beliefs Charles defends has led to noble civilizations of Sexual Slavery and Emasculation. The denial of sexual experience is the basis of education in these societies. Like all ignorance, it is a preparation for an unprofitable, wasted, frustrated life, heavy with bitterness. Look at the state of the wives and the miserable faces of the poor farangs who lead them around the market stalls in Bangkok. ‘Where the fuck did he pick that one up?’ I sometimes say to myself before I realise he is married to it. Is a lifetime of misery really more acceptable than the occasional barfine? Incredibly, apart from the occasionally fishing trip with his zipper trout, Charles believes it is.

Think about it (this is not very original either, but Charles needs to be refreshed); the sexual organs and sexual acts are just as amoral (I mean, neither moral or immoral) as any other physiological processes of humans, (eating, defecating, breathing and so on) and consequently are indisputably legitimate for those who exercise the freedom to use these organs, as long as this occurs without violence, constraint, or fraud against another person. Sexual acts in prostitution fall among this category; a simple exchanges of services for money between two (or more) consenting adults. It is as equally amoral (and nice) as being served a juicy steak by a cute waitress at a restaurant. It is the use of the sexual organs and their exposure through nudity than any real or imagined exploitation that Charles and his fellow prohibitionists object to. There is exploitation of the poor all over the world but sexual exploitation is always their fundamental concern, not the production of cheap goods for the Western market, for other forms of exploitation do not violate their taboos and superstitions.

Ignorance is the only reason Charles and those with similar mental characteristics hold the views that they do. Every one should have the right to sexual freedom and the free disposal of his or her body to that end; even it is just to beat the shit out of your midget friend, and no person shall be molested, prosecuted, or condemned by the law for having voluntarily engaged in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatever (again with the corollary; if devoid of violence, constraint and fraud).

Charles expresses well the arrogant presumption of those prohibitionists who, at home chockin’ their chickens, know nothing about real sexual life. What they talk about is an artificial sexuality which they have fabricated in their own minds by starting from the false ideas of chastity and carnal abstinence. There is nothing wrong with masturbation – Charles coyly alludes that he too is a wanker – but he and his crusaders stubbornly insist on the promotion of our emasculation. They know so little of Nature, and what they know they hate: for, in their system, Nature itself becomes that Sin which obsesses and stupefies them.

Charles and other anti-sexuals speak much of 'human dignity', an ambiguous notion, which has certainly nothing to do with sexual acts freely consented to. The supreme dignity of the human being is not to permit the enslavement of his thought, and therefore not to allow his acts to be dictated by systems which reason does not ratify, and which are, if he could clear his thoughts of his so-called morality, are infantile and ridiculous.

The present western world is full of discontented, irritated, neurotic people, leading frustrated or insipid existences, and whose troubles and anxieties endanger the whole social structure; and yet the remedy is there, at hand. It is a remedy that costs nothing but a few hundred baht, that is accessible to all, and is completely liberating. Don’t just stay at home spanking your monkey, escape from the troubles and hardships of life by setting free of your enslaved sexuality, and return to eminent and joyous places such as the 150 bars of Bangkok.

What is the persecution of our courtesans, escorts and companions (who are unkindly given the name of 'prostitutes', 'whores' and 'hookers') and the refusal to let them freely practice a profession which they have freely chosen, if it is not a slavery perversely organized by the sectarians of our morality, who in the Middle Ages even put them to death in punishment for their nonconformity? This is the true slavery—the refusal to admit that a woman owns her own body, and therefore has the right to dispose of it as she wishes and at the same time make a little money to improve the lives of her families, and her water buffalo too, if she so chooses.

On the one hand, wanking furiously, are the puritan groups make war against free sexuality, on metaphysical principles—which they describe as "moral" principles. On the other hand, the group of human beings, such as we who pay the odd barfine (I prefer freelancers myself) asserts itself in sexual activities precisely as in any other physiological activities. The people who belong to these two different groups ought not to live together, or holiday together for that matter, because they cannot endure each other having a good time, and continually provoke, embarrass, and inconvenience one another. Charles, if you have not yet been to relatively uncontaminated places such as South East Asia I recommend you stay where you are and continue to give yourself a good pull.

Not all of the points Charles makes are ridiculous. Some are hilarious. Speculations on what could take place instead barfining (which are to be made illegal!) are the best of them. Go and lie alongside a woman for 20 minutes under the protection of mamasan, before moving off to wrap your hand around your penis and moving it in a thrusting movement. (Sorry, but the Urban Dictionary has a finite number of synonyms for masturbation.)

Charles, seriously, leave us to do what we always have done, and will continue to do. We, and it, will not go away, nor will our barfinable ladies of the night. We would all suck our own dicks if we could, but not instead of barfining a lovely lady (or ladyboy), who, for a price, will happily do it for us.