Grisha Mamurin, the grandson of one of Russia’s richest oligarchs, Igor Nekludov, has been the subject of online rage for posting videos of women kissing him and showing their breasts for money. Various outlets, decidedly or implicitly feminist, or just covering the regular news cycle, have described the different scenarios as “degrading” or “humiliating”.

Virtually no mainstream commentators, unless you count members of the public in discussion sections, have sought to hold the girls accountable for their conscious choice to strip naked for or kiss Mamurin in view of perhaps hundreds of fellow Russians.

Because Mamurin’s asking price was only the equivalent of $120 (a larger sum in Russia but by no means massive), the scenes raise alarming questions about the extent to which many women will perform certain sexual acts for money. In addition, there has been a subsequent and all-encompassing infantilization of these girls by feminists.

These compulsive SJWs, unsurprisingly, solely blame the male offering the financial incentive for the perceived degradation and humiliation. The logically pervasive theme of their explanations, though they would deny it, is that large numbers of women cannot control themselves when asked to perform for only a moderate sum of money. So imagine the lack of self-control and self-determination if that figure were $12,000 or $120,000, not $120.

Filming naked people without consent is wrong, but why are these women excused for exposing themselves in public?

This is a public place,

I have previously made it clear that I vehemently oppose the naked or otherwise sexual filming of people without their consent. Not only is it stupid, considering the consequences of prosecution and conviction for a man, I believe it should be illegal to begin with.

But critics of Mamurin have ignored the biggest question: why are they dismissing the women exposing themselves in public? In Russia, like most countries, that’s a legally-punishable offense. These women could have had no idea how many people nearby could see what, unless they possessed 360-degree panoramic vision capable of keeping perfect track of every detail.

Moreover, at least dozens and probably hundreds of people are walking around when these women begin stripping down and baring their breasts. The example of this girl stripping for money is especially illuminating. Mothers are pushing strollers with infants and toddlers in them; boys aged ten or younger are skipping past; pensioners are seen ambling along.

Any feminist who claims that these videos are degrading and humiliating can only make such claims safely when they concede the girls are fundamentally degrading and humiliating themselves. If they don’t know there’s a camera rolling (which may not even be true), they do know throngs of people around them are able to see their mammaries and scant underwear.

The wider context of denying female agency

Grisha-Mamurin-3

The hypocritical rage against Mamurin needs to be construed in the context of feminism more broadly. Multitudinous narratives and legal fictions have been progressively employed by modern societies to deny females any responsibility for their own sexualization.

Jurisdictions such as Iceland have banned strip clubs on the basis that these establishments involve the unequivocal infliction of “male violence” upon women. Despite many women at these bars earning better salaries than computer programmers and engineers, these laws treat these girls as if they’re Somalian sex slaves begging for bread crusts at the feet of AK-47-wielding ISIS or al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic militants.

In reality, they bring home significantly more than many or most of their male patrons.

The infamous and poorly justified Nordic model of prostitution is also spreading rapidly, having started in Sweden. Norway and other nations have joined the enthusiasm for it, even going so far as to criminalize men using prostitutes abroad, one of the rare uses of extraterritorial legal provisions.

With no evidence that even close to a plurality of prostitutes are trafficked or otherwise forced into the industry, women offering sexual services are never prosecuted. This is anomalous, as a number of Swedish surveys have indicated that support for the Nordic model is tempered by a desire for prostitutes themselves to be prosecuted for selling sex.

Women need to take responsibility for their own sexualization

If we accept the feminist narrative, this wealthy prostitute, who had sex with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, is a victim of male violence. She earns more than the vast majority of Americans for selling her vaginal cavity.

The feminist and associated vitriol over Grisha Mamurin’s filming of financially-savvy girls is really just a cry of desperation. Most strands of feminism only breathe through the systematic suffocation and hiding of evidence, or the violent censoring of reasonable discourse.

True to their love of confirmation bias, they start with their presuppositions and then use 2% of the available information, this snippet itself grossly distorted and sucked dry, to construct an artificial ethos with which they can terrorize masculinity and eternally resuscitate female victimhood.

Reality is hard, particularly for feminists. Women have choices when they choose to enrich themselves via the medium of showing their breasts, tongue-tying with men, or dating and marrying into higher stations to seize the lifestyle they crave.

The perennially dreamed about magnum opus of feminists is the extinction of any sexual responsibility for women, and an attendant demonization of any sexual impulse expressed by men.

Read More: “Manspreading” Shows The Social Retardation Of Young Women