I think this is really messed up and made me angry when I read about it. Here are people trying to be as discreet as possible about this sort of thing and the government ambushes them for it.
Prostitution shouldn't be illegal. Every bad thing about it that people point out as an argument in favor of continued prohibition is a result of that prohibition.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Explain the high levels of sex trafficking and criminality involved in prostitution in places where it is legal then, for example Amsterdam.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Explain the high levels of sex trafficking and criminality involved in prostitution in places where it is legal then, for example Amsterdam.
When I hear "trafficking" I imagine "women getting transported in a ship container against their will." It evokes images of slavery, of some random innocent girl getting kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery a la "Taken." What it really means in reality is: Women emigrating with the purpose of becoming working girls. It's basically an immigration issue. In any case, we need not go so far as to legalize brothels and such. Just change the law so that those guys in the article who went out of their way to be discreet can't be charged with anything.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Also: I really do suspect that "human trafficking" might be a sham issue taken up by those who don't want to appear to be prudes when they argue that the oldest profession should remain illegal.
Article in National Review (of all places) arguing for ending sex work prohibition:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Explain the high levels of sex trafficking and criminality involved in prostitution in places where it is legal then, for example Amsterdam.
I really don't know myself if this is true, but do you have something with which to back up this assertion other than your own unqualified word?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Explain the high levels of sex trafficking and criminality involved in prostitution in places where it is legal then, for example Amsterdam.
When I hear "trafficking" I imagine "women getting transported in a ship container against their will." It evokes images of slavery, of some random innocent girl getting kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery a la "Taken." What it really means in reality is: Women emigrating with the purpose of becoming working girls. It's basically an immigration issue. In any case, we need not go so far as to legalize brothels and such. Just change the law so that those guys in the article who went out of their way to be discreet can't be charged with anything.
You're very wrong about the amount of coercion that takes place in sex trafficking. While the shipping container scenario isn't common, that doesn't mean that women are always happily travelling to foreign countries to sell themselves with full knowledge of what awaits them. Many women are deceived about the type of job that awaits them when they travel to other countries, being promised jobs in the service industry or as dancers. Then when the land in the foreign country, often with little knowledge of its laws or languages, they are told they are indebted to the person who paid for their travel, and forced to work off the money through prostitution.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Explain the high levels of sex trafficking and criminality involved in prostitution in places where it is legal then, for example Amsterdam.
I really don't know myself if this is true, but do you have something with which to back up this assertion other than your own unqualified word?
Sure, since you're having difficulty doing a simple Google (something I've sure you've instructed people to do before) I'll do it for you.
quote:When the Dutch government legalized prostitution in 2000, it was to protect the women by giving them work permits, but authorities now fear that this business is out of control: "We've realized this is no longer about small-scale entrepreneurs, but that big crime organizations are involved here in trafficking women, drugs, killings and other criminal activities", said Job Cohen, the former mayor of Amsterdam.[6] More recently, officials have noticed an increase in violence centered on this irregular industry, and have blamed this increase on the illegal immigration of individuals into Amsterdam to participate in the sex industry: "The guys from Eastern Europe bring in young and frightened women; they threaten them and beat them", said a resident of De Wallen.[6] Prostitution has remained connected to criminal activities, which has led the authorities to take several measures, including detailed plans to help the prostitutes quit the sex trade and find other professions.[13] In 2005 Amma Asante and Karina Schaapman, two councilors for the Labour Party (Netherlands), wrote a report, "Het onzichtbare zichtbaar gemaakt" (Making the Invisible Visible). Schaapman had once been a prostitute and was getting information about the influx of organized crime and violence into the business. Other reports came out around the same time. They concluded that a large number of prostitutes in Amsterdam were being forced to work and were being abused by pimps and criminal gangs, and that the goals of legalization were failing.[14][15] In response to the problems associated with the involvement of organized crime into the sex trade, the Dutch government has decided to close numerous prostitution businesses. Concerned about organized crime, money laundering and human trafficking, Amsterdam officials under Mayor Cohen denied the license renewals of about 30 brothels in the Amsterdam red light district De Wallen in 2006; the brothel owners appealed. To counter negative news reports, the district organized an open house day in 2007 and a statue to an unknown sex worker was unveiled, "intended to honor those employed in the industry world-wide."[16] In September 2007 it was announced that the city of Amsterdam was buying several buildings in the red light district from Charles Geerts in order to close about a third of the windows.[17]
quote:The Netherlands is listed by the UNODC as a top destination for victims of human trafficking.[21] Countries that are major sources of trafficked persons include Thailand, China, Nigeria, Albania, Bulgaria, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine,[21] Sierra Leone, and Romania.[22] Currently, human trafficking in the Netherlands is on the rise[citation needed], according to figures obtained from the National Centre against Human Trafficking. The report shows a substantial increase in the number of victims from Hungary and China. There were 809 registered victims of human trafficking in 2008, 763 were women and at least 60 percent of them were forced to work in the sex industry.[23] [24] Within the Netherlands, victims are often recruited by so-called "loverboys" – men who seduce young Dutch women and girls and later coerce them into prostitution[not in citation given]. The phenomenon was highlighted in 2008 by Maria Mosterd, who published a book about her ordeal as the 12-year-old victim of a loverboy.[25] The truthfulness of this book is disputed, and was the subject of an investigative journalism report. [26] Many victims of human trafficking are led to believe by organized criminals that they are being offered work in hotels or restaurants or in child care and are forced into prostitution with the threat or actual use of violence. Estimates of the number of victims vary from 1000 to 7000 on a yearly basis. Most police investigations on human trafficking concern legal sex businesses. All sectors of prostitution are well represented in these investigations, but particularly the window brothels are overrepresented. [27] [28] [29] At the end of 2008, a gang of six people were sentenced to prison terms of eight months to 7½ years in what prosecutors said was the worst case of human trafficking ever brought to trial in the Netherlands. The case involved more than 100 female victims, violently forced to work in prostitution.[30] In December 2009, two Nigerian men were sentenced to 4 and 4½ years in prison for having smuggled 140 Nigerian women aged 16–23 into the Netherlands. The women were made to apply for asylum and then disappeared from asylum centers, to work as prostitutes in surrounding countries. The men were said to have used "voodoo" curses on the women to prevent escape and enforce payment of debts.[31]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: [qb] Originally posted by jebus202: You're very wrong about the amount of coercion that takes place in sex trafficking. While the shipping container scenario isn't common, that doesn't mean that women are always happily travelling to foreign countries to sell themselves with full knowledge of what awaits them. Many women are deceived about the type of job that awaits them when they travel to other countries, being promised jobs in the service industry or as dancers. Then when the land in the foreign country, often with little knowledge of its laws or languages, they are told they are indebted to the person who paid for their travel, and forced to work off the money through prostitution.
Like I said, it's an immigration issue, and a convenient boogyman that modern day prudes often resort to in lieu of giving the "think of families!" argument. I'm sure that what you describe can happen, but that I'm not convinced that it's a solid enough reason, in this age of increasing sexual libertarianism, to deny the men in the above article the right to buy sex.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I can promise you I'm not in any way, shape or form, a prude. I'm completely pro-sexual freedom in every regard.
Calling sex trafficking an immigration issue, and not examining the underlying causes of the sex industry's demand for trafficked girls is an extremely simplistic view.
I don't know how a man's "right" to buy sex can supersede the right of these girls not to be forced into sex by criminals.
Not every girl in prostitution is trafficked from another country, but the level of coercion is high no matter where the girl has come from, and exiting prostitution can be nearly impossible.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: I can promise you I'm not in any way, shape or form, a prude. I'm completely pro-sexual freedom in every regard.
I wasn't calling you a prude.
But yours is the knee-jerk argument I've noticed over the years being given by the prohibition crowd.
quote:Calling sex trafficking an immigration issue, and not examining the underlying causes of the sex industry's demand for trafficked girls is an extremely simplistic view.
According to this wiki article in Australia (where prostition is legal) the estimated number of trafficking cases a year is 300 to 1000. Does the fact that that sort of thing happens (with those numbers) enough to justify denying Australian men the right to purchase sex all together?
quote: I don't know how a man's "right" to buy sex can supersede the right of these girls not to be forced into sex by criminals.
Direct the resources otherwise spent on maintaining the prohibition on prosecuting those criminals.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: I can promise you I'm not in any way, shape or form, a prude. I'm completely pro-sexual freedom in every regard.
I wasn't calling you a prude.
But yours is the knee-jerk argument I've noticed over the years being given by the prohibition crowd.
quote:Calling sex trafficking an immigration issue, and not examining the underlying causes of the sex industry's demand for trafficked girls is an extremely simplistic view.
According to this wiki article in Australia (where prostition is legal) the estimated number of trafficking cases a year is 300 to 1000. Does the fact that that sort of thing happens (with those numbers) enough to justify denying Australian men the right to purchase sex all together?
Yea, I do, I think 300 victims of trafficking a year is bad enough, but it's just one small part of the violence and criminality inherent with prostitution.
quote:
quote: I don't know how a man's "right" to buy sex can supersede the right of these girls not to be forced into sex by criminals.
Direct the resources otherwise spent on maintaining the prohibition on prosecuting those criminals.
Unless the most efficient way to stop the supply is by targeting the resources at the demand side.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: [qb] I can promise you I'm not in any way, shape or form, a prude. I'm completely pro-sexual freedom in every regard.
I wasn't calling you a prude.
But yours is the knee-jerk argument I've noticed over the years being given by the prohibition crowd.
quote:Calling sex trafficking an immigration issue, and not examining the underlying causes of the sex industry's demand for trafficked girls is an extremely simplistic view.
According to this wiki article in Australia (where prostition is legal) the estimated number of trafficking cases a year is 300 to 1000. Does the fact that that sort of thing happens (with those numbers) enough to justify denying Australian men the right to purchase sex all together?
Yea, I do, I think 300 victims of trafficking a year is bad enough, but it's just one small part of the violence and criminality inherent with prostitution.
And once again: Much of that is the result of the prohibition. You pointed out the case of Amsterdam, but I do not see similar things being mentioned in the case of Australia.
quote: Unless the most efficient way to stop the supply is by targeting the resources at the demand side.
The point of legalization is to respect the demand, and denying all men the option of purchasable sex seems too heavy handed a prevention for something that can also be directly prosecuted.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I don't to have time to properly find information about criminal organisations in the sex industry in Australia right now, but I'm sure 300+ sex trafficking victims isn't the extent of it, I'll see if I can find you some stuff tomorrow when I have time to look at it more.
On your second point, I don't agree that people have an innate right to buy sex, especially when it's doing a great amount of harm to some very vulnerable people right now (as opposed to some potential future where society has legalised and normalised prostitution, and removed all criminal elements from it and all negative psychological damage it can wreak on the prostituted person).
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
On your second point, I don't agree that people have an innate right to buy sex, especially when it's doing a great amount of harm to some very vulnerable people right now (as opposed to some potential future where society has legalised and normalised prostitution, and removed all criminal elements from it and all negative psychological damage it can wreak on the prostituted person).
I haven't seen any studies pointing out psychological damage as a result of being a prostitute, and right now it's prohibition that's responsible for that coercion and violence you mention, because under the current set of laws why would a prostitute who suffers violence bother to go the the police when she would also be harming herself by doing so?
Prostitution did not become illegal because of concerns over trafficking, it became illegal because of Christian women screaming THINK OF FAMILIES. It remains illegal for the same reason.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Before I go I'll respond to your point about a prostitute going to the police, which is true.
I think prostitution should be decriminalised, with laws being set up only to target the customers, pimps and traffickers. Prostituted people rarely have enough agency to justify prosecuting them for what they've done (or rather what has been done to them).
Also, whatever reasons it became illegal for doesn't nullify the reasons it should remain illegal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jebus, you made a claim and were asked about it. No need to get snippy.
All of that is well and good, but here's the thing-and here's why I'm not advocating for one side or the other, btw: was the problem better or worse before legalization, and how can we evaluate whether it was better or worse? Did legalization actually increase the overall amount of human trafficking (and I agree, calling slavery an 'immigration problem' seems...well)? What is being done to clean up the legalized practice, and could more be done to address criminality?
I'm not asking for you to answer any of that, only explaining why I'm not so sure as you are-and initially I was asking and pointing out that you were stating a very broad thing as though it were obvious.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Before I go I'll respond to your point about a prostitute going to the police, which is true.
I think prostitution should be decriminalised, with laws being set up only to target the customers, pimps and traffickers. Prostituted people rarely have enough agency to justify prosecuting them for what they've done (or rather what has been done to them).
In a society which is increasingly tending towards sexual libertarianism it seems downright cruel to deny the men in the above article the right to visit sex workers, since it's the very nature of this libertarianism that produces gross distortions in sexual outcomes that, I feel, necessitate the existence of a legal sex trade. To quote Michel Houellebecq:
It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women, others with none. It’s what’s known as ” the law of the market”. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: [qb]Also, whatever reasons it became illegal for doesn't nullify the reasons it should remain illegal.
You're right, but I feel it still substantially remains the reason, just that now many people are too self-conscious to make that argument. At the end of the day many a wife is not comfortable with her husband having the option of easy and legal encounters with sex workers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In a society which is increasingly tending towards sexual libertarianism it seems downright cruel to deny the men in the above article the right to visit sex workers, since it's the very nature of this libertarianism that produces gross distortions in sexual outcomes that, I feel, necessitate the existence of a legal sex trade. To quote Michel Houellebecq:
I'll just go ahead and say it: it's both creepy and amusing how often your posts and topics quickly pivot back to discussions of how men are wronged by (or on behalf of) women, what rights men should have exactly with respect to having sex or interactions with women, so on and so forth. Furthermore it's actually disturbing that you look at prostitution and apparently seem most interested in how men are victimized by the practice.
----------
quote:You're right, but I feel it still substantially remains the reason, just that now many people are too self-conscious to make that argument. At the end of the day many a wife is not comfortable with her husband having the option of easy and legal encounters with sex workers.
Absolutely. As everyone knows, women make up most of the clergy, police, and politicians in many a country so it only stands to reason that the reason prostitution remains illegal in much of the world is because of female disapproval.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:In a society which is increasingly tending towards sexual libertarianism it seems downright cruel to deny the men in the above article the right to visit sex workers, since it's the very nature of this libertarianism that produces gross distortions in sexual outcomes that, I feel, necessitate the existence of a legal sex trade. To quote Michel Houellebecq:
I'll just go ahead and say it: it's both creepy and amusing how often your posts and topics quickly pivot back to discussions of how men are wronged by (or on behalf of) women, what rights men should have exactly with respect to having sex or interactions with women, so on and so forth.
Using the term "creep" is uncalled for and misandrist.
As far I'm concerned the only other issue I made a thread about is Forced Fatherhood. I follow the manosphere and read blogs like this:
quote:Absolutely. As everyone knows, women make up most of the clergy, police, and politicians in many a country so it only stands to reason that the reason prostitution remains illegal in much of the world is because of female disapproval.
Yes. It was the Woman's Christian Temperance Union that pushed for the abolition of prostitution.
Furthermore, prostitution lowers the price of sex in the environment in which in its practiced. Women have an incentive to not let that happen. This academic paper argues as much:
(zoom in a couple of times)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Using the term "creep" is uncalled for and misandrist.
I'm not misandrist at all, but I find you creepy.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Using the term "creep" is uncalled for and misandrist.
I'm not misandrist at all, but I find you creepy.
How unfortunate. And I thought you were cool.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I am cool. But I worry that you're really terrified of women, in a really creepy way. They're, like, the spidery villains of your personal narrative.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Nonsense. Anyway Tom, do you think the men in the article in the OP deserved the humiliation they got and the denial of the services they sought?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think prostitution should be legal. I think these men deserved humiliation.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
...why?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
A libertarian argument for legal prostitution isn't creepy, but a men's rights argument for legal prostitution pretty much is.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
The problem is that both the libertarian and feminist arguments for prostitution are quite weak, the former being mostly philosophical (a consequence of "people should have the freedom to do anything that doesn't hurt others") and the latter ("the prostitutes deserve protection/rights!") not really strong enough to withstand the classic social conservative counter-argument that says those women deserve the bad things that happen to them for choosing to enter that profession. I mean, at least as far as the public is concerned. On the other hand, arguing that men should have the right to buy sex really gets at the heart of the matter.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: A libertarian argument for legal prostitution isn't creepy, but a men's rights argument for legal prostitution pretty much is.
*nods* It should be about a woman's (or man's) right to sell her (or his) body if she (or be) so chooses, not a man's right to have sex with her/him. Talking about a "man's right" is kind of disturbing. Like any other contractual service, there is no implicit right there. You have to get the other party to agree to work for you. Anything else is slavery.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just in case anyone forgot, sa'eed is neurotic about women and, indeed, creepy OH NO MISANDRY?? YOU'RE MISANDRYING ME Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He's an idiot. Just ignore him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Scifibum and Dogbreath hit on precisely what I was trying (poorly) to say. Putting it in terms of a 'man's right' to pay for sex is disturbing for precisely that reason.
-------
Also, re: criminalization of prostitution, try not to be too obtuse, Sa'eed. Who do you imagine such an organization had to lobby with in order to see their desire put into law? Not to mention are you seriously going to pretend that prostitution as it has historically been practiced shouldn't have been prohibited? Or just how important is 'a man's right to have sex', anyway? How many women need to be victimized to see that this right is protected?
(Also, if we had ignored Sa'eed I wouldn't have seen that video, which was great.)
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: A libertarian argument for legal prostitution isn't creepy, but a men's rights argument for legal prostitution pretty much is.
*nods* It should be about a woman's (or man's) right to sell her (or his) body if she (or be) so chooses, not a man's right to have sex with her/him. Talking about a "man's right" is kind of disturbing. Like any other contractual service, there is no implicit right there. You have to get the other party to agree to work for you. Anything else is slavery.
Duh? Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not to mention are you seriously going to pretend that prostitution as it has historically been practiced shouldn't have been prohibited? Or just how important is 'a man's right to have sex', anyway? How many women need to be victimized to see that this right is protected? [/QB]
Define "historically." If what's specially odious is the presence of pimps, well, middlemen exist in all sorts of businesses, but prohibition has encouraged an especially nasty and criminal sort to become the middlemen.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just in case anyone forgot, sa'eed is neurotic about women and, indeed, creepy OH NO MISANDRY?? YOU'RE MISANDRYING ME
Someone produced that video because they lost arguments to MRAs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Was one of those arguments "we can't let women serve in the military because we can't put men at risk of emotions caused by the capture or presence of these delicate little flowers in a unit"
or maybe it was that marriage is important because single mothers cannot control young males, we need a strong masculine presence so that these poor females don't get in over their heads with a greater gender than they.
Maybe it was an argument that women caused the financial crisis, abu ghraib, etc
Maybe it was something about how we have to fight back against network television being a 'gay and female ghetto' (ew)
Maybe he lost an argument against brilliant MRA arguments that the cultural taboo of prostitution in this country is the result of women collectively engaging in a conspiratorial price-fixing scheme for sex. (those damn females)
Maaaaybe he lost against MRA's who were bravely spreading the truthful gospel of "feminists want to medicalize a natural male state" like when tiger woods was unfaithful!
I don't know! I have trouble keeping all your arguments straight because you've literally been banned from here six times for being a crazy misogynist creep and stuff, so the crap you've said about women is under a bunch of different usernames!
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Was one of those arguments "we can't let women serve in the military because we can't put men at risk of emotions caused by the capture or presence of these delicate little flowers in a unit"
In COMBAT and front lines, not in the military in general.
quote:or maybe it was that marriage is important because single mothers cannot control young males, we need a strong masculine presence so that these poor females don't get in over their heads with a greater gender than they.
Seriously, do I need to pull statistics concerning the men in jail who come from single-mother households?
quote: Maybe it was an argument that women caused the financial crisis, abu ghraib, etc
Okay, THAT was a troll. There was a outrageous commercial that clearly implied as much unintentionally.
quote:Maybe it was something about how we have to fight back against network television being a 'gay and female ghetto' (ew)
In the sense of there not being anything for straight guys. I linked to an interview with a major tv producer who said that tv development staffs were entirely staffed by women who had a hard time coming up with programs men like.
quote: Maybe he lost an argument against brilliant MRA arguments that the cultural taboo of prostitution in this country is the result of women collectively engaging in a conspiratorial price-fixing scheme for sex. (those damn females)
That was an off the cuff remark that has been vindicated by the Baumeister and Vohs paper I linked above. Seriously, read it.
quote:Maaaaybe he lost against MRA's who were bravely spreading the truthful gospel of "feminists want to medicalize a natural male state" like when tiger woods was unfaithful!
I don't even remember this one. Can you link it? I doubt I said something so incoherent.
quote: I don't know! I have trouble keeping all your arguments straight because you've literally been banned from here six times for being a crazy misogynist creep and stuff, so the crap you've said about women is under a bunch of different usernames!
the_somalian and Sa'eed. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:the_somalian and Sa'eed.
you're forgetting at least three bro
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Seriously, do I need to pull statistics concerning the men in jail who come from single-mother households?
Just curious: did you even wonder, much less bother to look, into similar statistics with respect to father-only households, how much those statistics deviate based on income, neighborhoods, etc.?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:the_somalian and Sa'eed.
you're forgetting at least three bro
You're a liar.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lol, you idiot. those quotes I pulled up from your history of misogynist posting are mostly not from either the_somalian or Sa'eed
C'mon, follow with me, here's how to stop digging a hole for yourself. "Okay, well, yes, there was also Clive Candy and a few others. I probably should not have attempted a claim that my only other registered name was the_somalian"
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
The great name "Clive Candy" slipped my mind, Samp is right. GIVE HIM A COOKIE.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So...what, are you pretending (or pretending to pretend, whatever absurd troll gimmick this is) that there are only two others, not three?
I'm gonna go watch that video again:)
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Sa'eed, I wouldn't say you come off as creepy, exactly, just absurdly transparent in your motivations for choosing the arguments that you do.
As others have said, prostitution should be legal because if a woman (or a man, for that matter) wishes to sell their own body, then the state shouldn't get in the way of them doing so. It has nothing to do with making sure a man can satisfy their "needs." (And, hey, thanks for putting it out there that men are slaves to their dicks, because why would a man who is worried about men being downtrodden in our society worry about spreading ugly stereotypes about men, right?)
There may well be women who hold ugly attitudes about men, but they are a very small minority. If someone were to put a gun to my head and demand an answer, I daresay that I would have to guess that the percentage of men with similar ugly attittudes about women is higher.
There is no war. You are not a soldier. You strike me as a man who, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, has never really known a woman outside of his own relatives. Why not drop all of this nonsense and go meet one? Forget about all of this "women are the enemy" BS. Don't sweat any rejections, just move on from them and keep trying. Just be yourself. Except for the part of yourself that hates women. I suggest you hide that part - but only that part!
It's better that way. You'll be happier. I promise.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Sa'eed, I wouldn't say you come off as creepy, exactly, just absurdly transparent in your motivations for choosing the arguments that you do.
I think the sexual revolution really screwed over many guys to the benefit of alpha males. Yes, it allowed women to become sluttier, but mainly to the benefit of alpha males/hot guys. Before the sexual revolution, everyone matched up on the basis sex rank, but the current sexual order allows normal looking girls to trade their bodies for the attention of the top guys, who are more free than ever to indulge the male preference for novelty, which creates a massive shortage of datable 18 - 28 year old women.
quote: As others have said, prostitution should be legal because if a woman (or a man, for that matter) wishes to sell their own body, then the state shouldn't get in the way of them doing so. It has nothing to do with making sure a man can satisfy their "needs."
Simply put, that business market should be legal, as a solution to the situation mentioned in the above block. The sexual revolution did not increase the average quantity of available sex...it just rearranged it to the benefit of top men. Maybe the men who are deprived as a consequence of this shortage should be given the legal option to buy sex. Liberals like to concern themselves with poverty, but perhaps it's time they also concerned themselves with sexual poverty.
quote:There is no war. You are not a soldier.
I don't think there is a war, but there are legitimate issues.
quote: You strike me as a man who, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, has never really known a woman outside of his own relatives. Why not drop all of this nonsense and go meet one? Forget about all of this "women are the enemy" BS. Don't sweat any rejections, just move on from them and keep trying. Just be yourself. Except for the part of yourself that hates women. I suggest you hide that part - but only that part!
It's better that way. You'll be happier. I promise.
I don't hate women, but thanks for the advice. When I did initially start googling for this stuff because I was having trouble getting dates, I do find it interesting and compelling in and of itself beyond my mere interests.
[ July 23, 2013, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Do you think there might possibly be some other reason you can't get a date?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think the sexual revolution really screwed over many guys to the benefit of alpha males. Yes, it allowed women to become sluttier, but mainly to the benefit of alpha males/hot guys. Before the sexual revolution, everyone matched up on the basis sex rank, but the current sexual order allows normal looking girls to trade their bodies for the attention of the top guys, who are more free than ever to indulge the male preference for novelty, which creates a massive shortage of datable 18 - 28 year old women.
Whatever it was you read or whoever it was who told you that you've got a good grasp on the whole gender relations thing did you a major disservice, man. 'On the basis of sex rank'? What does that even mean? 'Mainly a service to alpha males'? Even within this absurd, misogynistic framework masquerading as male fairness your reasoning doesn't hold up to a moment's scrutiny. Let's say for a moment that you're right, and the sexual revolution allowed women to be 'sluttier' (another big old neon sign of, you know, misogyny and fear of women): why would that benefit alpha males and leave everyone else out in the cold?
Suppose for a minute that you're right, and that before everyone lined up according to sexual ranking. In this framework, aren't the ugly, timid people also going to be having sex with each other?
A 'massive shortage', huh? Well I didn't think you'd cop to 'can't get a date' so easily. Except, you know, there's no such 'massive shortage'. The problem is that when it comes to women, you're a creep. Many women can likely tell without your even needing to speak to them. (Many people, in fact.)
quote:Simply put, that business market should be legal, as a solution to the situation mentioned in the above block. The sexual revolution did not increase the average quantity of available sex...it just rearranged it to the benefit of top men. Maybe the men who are deprived as a consequence of this shortage should be given the legal option to buy sex. Liberals like to concern themselves with poverty, but perhaps it's time they also concerned themselves with sexual poverty.
So this really is about your not being able to get a date and wishing to purchase sex. Well, props to you for being so straightforward about it I suppose. But as usual you've presented several central claims that must be true before your outlook can even start to make sense, as though they were obviously true and unarguable. They're not.
quote:I don't think there is a war, but there are legitimate issues.
I don't believe you. You regularly talk-under a variety of names-as though there is a war. Even if you won't cop to that word, you talk like there's a 'police action'.
quote:I don't hate women, but thanks for the advice. When I did initially start googling for this stuff because I was having trouble getting dates, I do find it interesting and compelling in and of itself beyond my mere interests.
You were googling the wrong things. I suppose a fringe benefit of your misogynistic nonsense is that it at least makes it less likely you'll procreate and raise children, imparting this screed to future generations directly.
Overall though, you are aware that this kind of thinking of yours is doomed, yes? As women get closer and closer to equality on sexual, social, economic, and political grounds this line of yours will become ever more sidelined simply because your rhetoric will become first offensive and then laughable to more and more people. You clearly think there is a war. Given that, admit that you've lost and adapt rather than being the nut wearing signs.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think being a "hot guy" probably does make it a lot easier to get yourself casual sex. However, my perception is that when it comes to finding someone to commit to long term, women (even beautiful women) don't value good looks as highly as they do other factors (intelligence, success in career, sense of humor, etc). Basically the criteria moves towards someone that'd be a good candidate for fatherhood. At least among the subset of women who want to have a family.
I suspect one central part of your issue is that having had casual sex in the past ("being a slut") disqualifies a woman from being "dateable" in your mind. In which case, sure, you aren't going to find many 18-28 year old women that haven't had sex before you meet them.
Perhaps I'm wrong on that. If so, then I'd work on the parts of you that can improve your desirability as a dating candidate. Career, hygiene, wardrobe, physical fitness, having interesting hobbies, etc. And of course, consciously altering your views on women...
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE]Whatever it was you read or whoever it was who told you that you've got a good grasp on the whole gender relations thing did you a major disservice, man. 'On the basis of sex rank'? What does that even mean? 'Mainly a service to alpha males'? Even within this absurd, misogynistic framework masquerading as male fairness your reasoning doesn't hold up to a moment's scrutiny. Let's say for a moment that you're right, and the sexual revolution allowed women to be 'sluttier' (another big old neon sign of, you know, misogyny and fear of women): why would that benefit alpha males and leave everyone else out in the cold?
Because humans naturally tend towards polygyny. Before the the sexual revolution, culture and law pushed against this nature of mankind and ensured a one to one mating ratio through shaming out of wedlock sex, not providing government support for bastards, making it hard to get divorced, etc. Alpha males had a harder time carrying out their desires. Today, however, a top guy is free to consume more than his fair share of female erotic capital. He can date a woman until she's 30, and then break up with her and start dating a 24 year old. He is engaging in serial monogamy. Yes, the 30 year old woman is still around and free to date other men, but at 30 she is lesser than at 24.
quote: Suppose for a minute that you're right, and that before everyone lined up according to sexual ranking. In this framework, aren't the ugly, timid people also going to be having sex with each other?
Yes. That's what Michel Houellebecq means when he says "everyone finds their place." But the sexual revolution has allowed a guy who is, say, an 8, the freedom to engage in serial monogamy or in simultaneous relationships with women below him in sex rank, women who are glad to trade their bodies for the attention of a man above them in hope of a relationship. Remember, it was Arnold who impregnated his maid. It wasn't Maria Schriver who got impregnated by the gardener.
quote: A 'massive shortage', huh? Well I didn't think you'd cop to 'can't get a date' so easily. Except, you know, there's no such 'massive shortage'. The problem is that when it comes to women, you're a creep. Many women can likely tell without your even needing to speak to them. (Many people, in fact.)
I'm not going to respond to your petty insults.
quote: So this really is about your not being able to get a date and wishing to purchase sex. Well, props to you for being so straightforward about it I suppose. But as usual you've presented several central claims that must be true before your outlook can even start to make sense, as though they were obviously true and unarguable. They're not.
Yes, I'm coming out of the closet, the "I wish I had the legal right to buy sex" closet.
quote: I don't believe you. You regularly talk-under a variety of names-as though there is a war. Even if you won't cop to that word, you talk like there's a 'police action'.
"Regularly"? I've had this username for three years now.
quote:You were googling the wrong things. I suppose a fringe benefit of your misogynistic nonsense is that it at least makes it less likely you'll procreate and raise children, imparting this screed to future generations directly.
It's sad that I might not get to raise children. I don't know why that would make you gloat.
quote:Overall though, you are aware that this kind of thinking of yours is doomed, yes? As women get closer and closer to equality on sexual, social, economic, and political grounds this line of yours will become ever more sidelined simply because your rhetoric will become first offensive and then laughable to more and more people. You clearly think there is a war. Given that, admit that you've lost and adapt rather than being the nut wearing signs.
I don't think so. Look at the comments section of any news piece regarding gender issues, even prostitution, and you'll see my views substantially represented and favored. These are not "traditional" views, but an assessment of and response to the current sexual landscape.
[ July 23, 2013, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I think being a "hot guy" probably does make it a lot easier to get yourself casual sex. However, my perception is that when it comes to finding someone to commit to long term, women (even beautiful women) don't value good looks as highly as they do other factors (intelligence, success in career, sense of humor, etc). Basically the criteria moves towards someone that'd be a good candidate for fatherhood. At least among the subset of women who want to have a family.
But it's too bad that a lot of women start thinking "long term" once they hit their late 20s or 30s, having slut it up prior and failing to snag the top guys who only cared to use them as masturbatory devices.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Look at the comments section...
...because that's where we all go for balanced, thoughtful, and rational discussion. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Today, however, a top guy is free to consume more than his fair share of female erotic capital.
Clive Candy: Sexual Communist.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Today, however, a top guy is free to consume more than his fair share of female erotic capital.
Clive Candy: Sexual Communist.
Lol. Traditional social conservatism in the U.S did encourage a form of sexual socialism by encouraging a one to one mating ratio through the law and cultural traditions, but the sexual revolution returned us to the jungle, where many a man makes a killing and many gets left with nothing. Legalized prostitution is a necessary corrective.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Look at the comments section...
...because that's where we all go for balanced, thoughtful, and rational discussion.
The comments section are often the best place you see reasoned discussion, and the best part of many blogs. Recently Ann Althouse shut down her comments section because her readers vehemently disagreed with her on an issue (forced fatherhood.) Her blog is not worth reading anymore.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Yes, the 30 year old woman is still around and free to date other men, but at 30 she is lesser than at 24.
Less attractive to creepy guys who view her sexuality as a commodity? No loss.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Yes, the 30 year old woman is still around and free to date other men, but at 30 she is lesser than at 24.
Less attractive to creepy guys who view her sexuality as a commodity? No loss.
It IS a commidity. Read the Baumeister and Vohs paper.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Perhaps you might date more successfully if you did not perceive your sexual interest in women as a financial transaction.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Do you think there might possibly be some other reason you can't get a date?
I am not sure he could get a prostitute.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Sa'eed: There are so many things you've said that are so twisted that I'm not even sure where to begin. But one thing that stuck out is your conception of an "alpha male." This is a term I've heard used before, sometimes by guys who go around claiming to be Alphas (generally speaking, insecure douchy little men) and sometimes by people complaining about Alphas (see above), but it's not really a dichotomy I've ever observed or taken part in. What, in your mind, makes a man an Alpha Male? What makes you *not* an Alpha Male?
Is it possible that there is no such thing, but merely there are certain traits the majority of women of women find attractive? Because typically when a man has trouble getting a date, he works on improving himself regarding said traits. By, say, working out, or getting a nice suit, or taking a speech class/working on social skills, or getting a better job, or working hard to demonstrate positive qualities he already posesses to the woman he's interested in. Your approach - saying that there are "alpha males" and everyone who isn't one is out of luck - seems oddly fatalistic, and more importantly, not actually true.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Alpha males are men who stand out in some way be it a handsome waiter or local musician or actor who take advantage of their status to consume more than their fair of female erotic capital. Because of contraception and abortion, and welfare/child support, the social risks of pregnancy have been significantly reduced, and women in their prime years are free to select mates on a purely animalistic basis, and this ends up rewarding some guys with rotating harems and others with nothing.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
So you're upset that medical technology has leveled the playing field so that if they wish, women have the same choices that men have always had when it comes to their sex lives?
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Female Erotic Capital. This is what I am going to name my new band.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obama: So you're upset that medical technology has leveled the playing field so that if they wish, women have the same choices that men have always had when it comes to their sex lives?
No, I'm upset that society hasn't seen fit to legalize prostitution as a mild corrective to alpha males' tendency of hording female erotic capital.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Alpha males are men who stand out in some way be it a handsome waiter or local musician or actor who take advantage of their status to consume more than their fair of female erotic capital. Because of contraception and abortion, and welfare/child support, the social risks of pregnancy have been significantly reduced, and women in their prime years are free to select mates on a purely animalistic basis, and this ends up rewarding some guys with rotating harems and others with nothing.
Your failure to get dates isn't due to alpha males 'hoarding female erotic capital'. There are millions of non-alpha-males (which seems to have just one qualification: obtaining sex when you aren't) who are having sex with multiple partners. The reason you're not one of them has a very great deal more to do with you than a social and cultural conspiracy that acts against you.
As for the comments section...hehe. You're right, it's a sign of how relevant and meaningful your perspective is, how great its long-term prospects are, that you can find 'quality' discussions on Internet comments sections'.
You could solve this problem you've got, that of female rejection and your anger over it, and it wouldn't even be very difficult. But that would involve admitting that something might be wrong (or at least poorly adapted) with you. Much more flattering to the ego to believe that the world is wrong.
Sometimes people that argue that the whole world is wrong and needs fixing have something meaningful to say. Sometimes they're heroes. Usually they're just varying degrees of weird, crazy, or frightened.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Alpha males are men who stand out in some way be it a handsome waiter or local musician or actor who take advantage of their status to consume more than their fair of female erotic capital. Because of contraception and abortion, and welfare/child support, the social risks of pregnancy have been significantly reduced, and women in their prime years are free to select mates on a purely animalistic basis, and this ends up rewarding some guys with rotating harems and others with nothing.
Your failure to get dates isn't due to alpha males 'hoarding female erotic capital'. There are millions of non-alpha-males (which seems to have just one qualification: obtaining sex when you aren't) who are having sex with multiple partners. The reason you're not one of them has a very great deal more to do with you than a social and cultural conspiracy that acts against you.
As for the comments section...hehe. You're right, it's a sign of how relevant and meaningful your perspective is, how great its long-term prospects are, that you can find 'quality' discussions on Internet comments sections'.
Sometimes people that argue that the whole world is wrong and needs fixing have something meaningful to say. Sometimes they're heroes. Usually they're just varying degrees of weird, crazy, or frightened.
Well. One thing we could do is to stop encouraging people to define their lives by who wants to date them. Which is, perhaps accidentally, what you're doing.
Okay that said Sa'eed, some of the things you're saying are pretty sexist. I mean. Jeez. And somewhere there are members of the opposite sex that face some of the same obstacles you do and men don't have a monopoly on them.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] Your failure to get dates isn't due to alpha males 'hoarding female erotic capital'. There are millions of non-alpha-males (which seems to have just one qualification: obtaining sex when you aren't) who are having sex with multiple partners. The reason you're not one of them has a very great deal more to do with you than a social and cultural conspiracy that acts against you.
I didn't say it was a sole reason, but it's a pressure that affects all men.
That image illustrates the behavior that used to be discouraged but which is allowed today. It produces inequities. Maybe let the B's in the second column have the option of legal prostitution? That's all I mean to say.
quote: As for the comments section...hehe. You're right, it's a sign of how relevant and meaningful your perspective is, how great its long-term prospects are, that you can find 'quality' discussions on Internet comments sections'.
These are radical views, right now only whispered in chatrooms and in the dark alleys of the internet, but they're having an impact. MRAs are making the news, and a lot of feminists do nothing screech about them.
quote: You could solve this problem you've got, that of female rejection and your anger over it, and it wouldn't even be very difficult. But that would involve admitting that something might be wrong (or at least poorly adapted) with you. Much more flattering to the ego to believe that the world is wrong.
It's true that it's absurd to conflate societal problems with personal problems. However, I've also come to care about these sort of things on an ideological level. I'm not calling for returning to the 50s, I'm okay with sexual libertarianism, I'm just saying let's take it further and allow legal prostitution so that the pressure created by top men hording female erotic capital are alleviated somewhat.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Okay that said Sa'eed, some of the things you're saying are pretty sexist. I mean. Jeez. And somewhere there are members of the opposite sex that face some of the same obstacles you do and men don't have a monopoly on them.
The average woman who isn't obese is attractive to hundreds of millions of men in her teens and 20s and maybe even into her 30s. The only women who have problems with dating and attracting men are the truly unfortunate ones when it comes to looks, and I'm talking ones with genetic abnormalities or some such.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The most insane thing about the whole "alpha male" thing that MRA's get themselves all psychotically wrapped up in is that it isn't even remotely accurate as a descriptor. It's a flawed human sexual relations model based on a model for pack wolves — which never even adequately explained wolf social heirarchy either.
"alpha male consumption of female erotic capital" — i mean, jesus christ
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Okay that said Sa'eed, some of the things you're saying are pretty sexist.
He's massively sexist and he holds women in contempt and does not want them to have equal rights and opportunities to men.
Never forget this. He has a rap sheet a mile long and has been so massively, profoundly misogynistic he has been banned for it.
He never should have been given a second chance, let alone a third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The most insane thing about the whole "alpha male" thing that MRA's get themselves all psychotically wrapped up in is that it isn't even remotely accurate as a descriptor. It's a flawed human sexual relations model based on a model for pack wolves — which never even adequately explained wolf social heirarchy either.
It's not used scientifically but is just supposed to mean "top men."
quote:"alpha male consumption of female erotic capital" — i mean, jesus christ
...he spluttered.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:"alpha male consumption of female erotic capital" — i mean, jesus christ
...he spluttered.
Yes, clive, keep telling us about how young women slut it up. keep explaining female sexual behavior for us. tell us about whether or not you ever found a surrogate womb so that you could pay someone to produce an offspring for you without having to deal with a mother and their potentially pernicious female claim to the child.
while you're at it, tell us about homosexuality and jews, the other two favorite topics of yours you were banned for.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Okay that said Sa'eed, some of the things you're saying are pretty sexist.
He's massively sexist and he holds women in contempt and does not want them to have equal rights and opportunities to men.
Never forget this. He has a rap sheet a mile long and has been so massively, profoundly misogynistic he has been banned for it.
He never should have been given a second chance, let alone a third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.
yes he should
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Okay that said Sa'eed, some of the things you're saying are pretty sexist.
He's massively sexist and he holds women in contempt and does not want them to have equal rights and opportunities to men.
Never forget this. He has a rap sheet a mile long and has been so massively, profoundly misogynistic he has been banned for it.
He never should have been given a second chance, let alone a third, fourth, fifth, or sixth.
yes he should
No he shouldn't. Do you even really recall what his history is here?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:"alpha male consumption of female erotic capital" — i mean, jesus christ
...he spluttered.
Yes, clive, keep telling us about how young women slut it up. keep explaining female sexual behavior for us. tell us about whether or not you ever found a surrogate womb so that you could pay someone to produce an offspring for you without having to deal with a mother and their potentially pernicious female claim to the child.
I'm going to make another thread for you to talk about me, so that you can leave this one alone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all seriousness, it might solve some of your problems if you tried dating a gay Jewish guy for a bit.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
He got me to watch the original house of cards and thats more than you've ever ****ing done for me.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: He got me to watch the original house of cards and thats more than you've ever ****ing done for me.
Did you like it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: He got me to watch the original house of cards and thats more than you've ever ****ing done for me.
I'll take that as a 'no'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Cool, now I'll just dualpost in both threads. Great idea!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Since I'm being asked to talk about this poster here, let's talk about this poster here. He is a psychologically broken creepy man. It's really sad! He has been banned before, multiple times. That was good, it was the appropriate course of action! He simply just flaunted the ban and came back and kept posting, each time ramping up his behavior into territory that got him banned again. This time around we were under the impression that he was being allowed to post on this alt on a provisional basis given that he avoid some specific controversial topics, or at least that's what I was under the impression was going on. He has continued to talk about subjects that he gets banned for. He should probably just shut up and go away forever!
Well, you might say, those certainly are some harsh words! And, after all, he only repeatedly got banned and then created alts to get around that ban, surely we can forgive and forget that he is yet again, right now, totally talking about women 'sluts' in true Clive Candy/Cindy Carter/the_Somalian/Sa'eed/etc fashion. It's totally not a slap in the face to any mod giving him the benefit of the doubt, or anything.
Go ahead and take a gander at those posts, which represent a trivial ten minute application of the use of the search function. They don't even include most of the threads that he made in the repeated periods in which he would start spamming really trollslummy threads that were what would get him banned. Again, and again, and again. The absolute worst of what this guy has written simply got deleted. Think about that when you're reading this: it's not even close to the worst he subjected this forum to.
Anyway, have fun discussing women with this guy! But remember, multiple women have come forward and talked forwardly about how he makes this place a more hostile environment to women, or said directly sexist things to them, and that's why he should be banned! These arguments have been repeatedly accepted and he was banned; he simply alted around the bans and is back to talking about female slutting. Today.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Oh man this thread is so funny it's sad.
I can kinda sorta in a REALLY roundabout and twisted way see where Sa'eed is coming from. Still, I just don't buy it.
The problem is, I am nowhere near being an "Alpha" male. I'm overweight, lazy, socially awkward and inept to the point of damn near being diagnosed with social anxiety (and even mild autism has been thrown around) and broke. The only thing I have going for me is a brain, a decent sense of humor and a new sorta cool profession. Despite all that, I have five names in my cell phone right now that I could call and be getting all the action I want tonight. All it would cost me is maybe the price of dinner and protection. And no, none of them are "ones with genetic abnormalities or some such".
That being said, I have no problem with some sort of good system of highly regulated, legal prostitution. There are times a man wants something that is very difficult to find for free without revealing far too much of themselves to the world at large. We all have our kinks. Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "alpha male consumption of female erotic capital" — i mean, jesus christ
I just can't stop laughing at this. No, it's no laughing matter but I just can't help it. Well said. Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Sam I think I need a tldr here.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I stand behind all those posts. I mean Samp's sensationalism aside, I can defend all of them. I mean consider the very last link. This guy basically argued the same thing recently:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I stand behind all those posts.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Oh man, I better delete that last post befo--
Oops.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Oh man this thread is so funny it's sad.
I can kinda sorta in a REALLY roundabout and twisted way see where Sa'eed is coming from. Still, I just don't buy it.
The problem is, I am nowhere near being an "Alpha" male. I'm overweight, lazy, socially awkward and inept to the point of damn near being diagnosed with social anxiety (and even mild autism has been thrown around) and broke. The only thing I have going for me is a brain, a decent sense of humor and a new sorta cool profession. Despite all that, I have five names in my cell phone right now that I could call and be getting all the action I want tonight. All it would cost me is maybe the price of dinner and protection. And no, none of them are "ones with genetic abnormalities or some such".
That being said, I have no problem with some sort of good system of highly regulated, legal prostitution. There are times a man wants something that is very difficult to find for free without revealing far too much of themselves to the world at large. We all have our kinks.
You are part of the problem. Quit hording all that female erotic capital.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Okay lets censor that phrase please.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Oh man this thread is so funny it's sad.
I can kinda sorta in a REALLY roundabout and twisted way see where Sa'eed is coming from. Still, I just don't buy it.
The problem is, I am nowhere near being an "Alpha" male. I'm overweight, lazy, socially awkward and inept to the point of damn near being diagnosed with social anxiety (and even mild autism has been thrown around) and broke. The only thing I have going for me is a brain, a decent sense of humor and a new sorta cool profession. Despite all that, I have five names in my cell phone right now that I could call and be getting all the action I want tonight. All it would cost me is maybe the price of dinner and protection. And no, none of them are "ones with genetic abnormalities or some such".
That being said, I have no problem with some sort of good system of highly regulated, legal prostitution. There are times a man wants something that is very difficult to find for free without revealing far too much of themselves to the world at large. We all have our kinks.
You are part of the problem. Quit hording all that female erotic capital.
1. I'm not hording them. Two I have had relationships with in the past but no longer. The other three have made it quite clear that they are willing but other than friendship, I'm not interested.
2. If I was hording them, how does it support your theory when I am so clearly NOT an "alpha" male? Plus, who says I'm the only guy they are involved with? The only way I could horde them is to keep them chained in my basement (yes, I know someone that does this and even he was willing to share) and that's not my thing.
3. Yes there are lots of women that go for the kind of guy you describe as an "alpha" but there are LOTS of women that find such guys to be nothing but pricks and not worth the time. Go find some of them.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I will do that. Until then, can I keep noting that the current sexual landscape leaves many guys out to dry by design as I argued?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
You can. It doesn't make you at all right, but you can certainly argue it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That image illustrates the behavior that used to be discouraged but which is allowed today. It produces inequities. Maybe let the B's in the second column have the option of legal prostitution? That's all I mean to say.
For the sake of argument-not that you've actually made one, you've referenced a couple of articles but that's about it-let's assume your take on the modern American 'sexual landscape' is accurate. Let's just throw out that things vary between religious, cultural, economic, and even regional groups and pretend for a moment that it's all the same.
It's a competition and you're losing, so you want to change the rules instead of compete and risk defeat. Call it what it is-you're not interested in fairness, you're losing and you don't want to anymore.
quote:ese are radical views, right now only whispered in chatrooms and in the dark alleys of the internet, but they're having an impact. MRAs are making the news, and a lot of feminists do nothing screech about them.
You're absolutely right. One only has to examine the recent history of American politics and gender issues to see that, yes, the 'screeching' feminists (by all means, continue to lie about not being a misogynist while characterizing feminists like that, it's not at all transparent) are gradually winning fewer victories and there's every sign of a counter-revolution.
Right? I mean look at the chat rooms and comment sections. Flipping loon.
quote:It's true that it's absurd to conflate societal problems with personal problems. However, I've also come to care about these sort of things on an ideological level. I'm not calling for returning to the 50s, I'm okay with sexual libertarianism, I'm just saying let's take it further and allow legal prostitution so that the pressure created by top men hording female erotic capital are alleviated somewhat.
I don't believe you actually care about the ideology. It's pretty clear that you care about not getting laid enough, and ensuring for your own vanity that it's everyone else's fault. Why do I say this? Because if one only briefly examines your posting history, one finds that it's at least as important to you to express your misogyny as it is to bemoan 'inequality' on an ideological basis.
quote:The average woman who isn't obese is attractive to hundreds of millions of men in her teens and 20s and maybe even into her 30s. The only women who have problems with dating and attracting men are the truly unfortunate ones when it comes to looks, and I'm talking ones with genetic abnormalities or some such.
Have you even considered that, as frightened of and resentful towards women as you are, you may not have a very good grasp on what the dating lives of women are actually like? Or is this all stemming from seething resentment as yet another guy (not a 'nice guy' like you) gets a girl you want?
quote:It's not used scientifically but is just supposed to mean "top men."
You've attempted repeatedly to couch your arguments as though they have scientific merit. They don't. Don't try and dodge that now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also: if you actually are concerned about 'male rights', you probably already realize that you're an embarrassment. The things you routinely say are so offensive and so poorly conceived that other people who do want to make sure that as women's rights comes closer and closer to the norm rather than a special set of issues, male rights aren't marginalized.
Just about every word out of your mouth makes the job of the 'screeching' feminists and homosexuals easier. Go find an MRA you approve of and donate to their cause or something, if you're ideologically committed, because this hurts your cause.
But then, that's not actually your cause, is it? This has always been about expressing frustration, resentment, anger, and hate for women, homosexuals, and Jews.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
You haven't coherently argued against a single thing I said, you just keep spewing all this empty headed invective. Whatever makes you feel better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well at this point I'm just poking fun at how afraid and how sexist you are, that's quite true. But I've pointed out-repeatedly-how even if you take as given the claims you're making, your arguments still don't make sense. Others have as well.
Conveniently you don't seem to remember that. It's a habit of yours through many screen names. Perhaps, like those screen names, you'll eventually acknowledge this habit of yours?
For example: got anything to say about how your opinions don't seem to take into account that female behavior is hardly univeral? That female sexuality varies across a variety of ranges, from religion, child status, economic status, racial group, even geographical region? No. It's the same everywhere-women are more free to 'slut it up', across the board. We don't need to demonstrate that this is true because it's obvious, right?
Another example: you haven't made a case for why, if all of this is financial transaction, why we should change the competition just for your sake. Why shouldn't we adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards these financial transactions? Why does society need a radical revision in order to address your thwarted libido?
Your response to my point about women being the political power nowhere in the world was to point out the WCTU-an institution which had to lobby universally male politicians to get their will done. So, yeah, brilliant argument there, dude.
You had nothing to say with respect to my question about criminality in single-father households, and to what extent criminality is greater among children of single parent households that isn't also accounted for by variations in income and standards of living and education.
There are other examples. You're lying (again) when you claim I've offered no arguments. At this point, though, until you address at least some of them, I'll probably be just underlining how much you view women as strictly sexual things for men to have access to, to scorn you for your fear, and wait until you're banned again which hopefully will be soon.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and re: gloating about the diminished chances for you to procreate. Well, it's simple: if you don't father children, it's less likely some impressionable child-male or god forbid female of yours-will be subjected to your hardly-unique brand of fear of women.
Blegh. Thinking about that makes me imagine you as an uncle, and wondering how open you are when things are face to face about the sexual desirability of fifteen year old girls.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That image illustrates the behavior that used to be discouraged but which is allowed today. It produces inequities. Maybe let the B's in the second column have the option of legal prostitution? That's all I mean to say.
For the sake of argument-not that you've actually made one, you've referenced a couple of articles but that's about it-let's assume your take on the modern American 'sexual landscape' is accurate. Let's just throw out that things vary between religious, cultural, economic, and even regional groups and pretend for a moment that it's all the same.
It's a competition and you're losing, so you want to change the rules instead of compete and risk defeat. Call it what it is-you're not interested in fairness, you're losing and you don't want to anymore.
I don't want to really change the rules. Things are mostly fine, we just need to extend the sexual libertarianism a bit more as to allow involuntarily celibate men the option of buying sex.
quote: You're absolutely right. One only has to examine the recent history of American politics and gender issues to see that, yes, the 'screeching' feminists (by all means, continue to lie about not being a misogynist while characterizing feminists like that, it's not at all transparent) are gradually winning fewer victories and there's every sign of a counter-revolution.
You have the absurd habit of building strawmen out of everything I say. "Having an impact" need not mean "counter-feminist revolution." But rather have an impact on gender relation discussions, which is increasingly happening.
quote: Right? I mean look at the chat rooms and comment sections. Flipping loon.
Small steps.
quote: I don't believe you actually care about the ideology. It's pretty clear that you care about not getting laid enough, and ensuring for your own vanity that it's everyone else's fault.
So suppose you're right. How does the motivation behind an argument logically make that argument incorrect? Seriously, believe what you want. That's doesn't make what I say wrong. And I said, I did start looking into this stuff for personal reasons, but it's also interesting sociology.
quote: You've attempted repeatedly to couch your arguments as though they have scientific merit. They don't. Don't try and dodge that now.
The guy who came up with the phrase "alpha male" years ago spoke against its usage in PUA circles. However, it is still used to colloquially meaning of "high status" man.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well at this point I'm just poking fun at how afraid and how sexist you are, that's quite true. But I've pointed out-repeatedly-how even if you take as given the claims you're making, your arguments still don't make sense. Others have as well.
I'm not going to do a dissertation just because you people want to play obtuse.
quote: For example: got anything to say about how your opinions don't seem to take into account that female behavior is hardly univeral? That female sexuality varies across a variety of ranges, from religion, child status, economic status, racial group, even geographical region? No. It's the same everywhere-women are more free to 'slut it up', across the board. We don't need to demonstrate that this is true because it's obvious, right?
But this is hardly relevant to the fact that sexual revolution happened, and it allowed certain mating patterns that have deleterious effects. It's like me saying "contraception is used by women" and you replying "women's behavior is NOT universal and contraception varies by class race blah blah."
quote: Another example: you haven't made a case for why, if all of this is financial transaction, why we should change the competition just for your sake. Why shouldn't we adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards these financial transactions? Why does society need a radical revision in order to address your thwarted libido?
Once again, spinning your own bullshit and replying to it. I am arguing we extend the laissez-faire approach all the more by allowing legal prostitution.
quote: Your response to my point about women being the political power nowhere in the world was to point out the WCTU-an institution which had to lobby universally male politicians to get their will done. So, yeah, brilliant argument there, dude.
Well that was the dumbest thing you said. I'm confining my analysis to the U.S, where women vote, and have politicians pander to them.
quote: You had nothing to say with respect to my question about criminality in single-father households, and to what extent criminality is greater among children of single parent households that isn't also accounted for by variations in income and standards of living and education.
You're right, we were getting away from the thread topic. I'm not dredging up every argument I ever made in this forum despite your eagerness.
quote: There are other examples. You're lying (again) when you claim I've offered no arguments. At this point, though, until you address at least some of them, I'll probably be just underlining how much you view women as strictly sexual things for men to have access to, to scorn you for your fear, and wait until you're banned again which hopefully will be soon.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Here is someone who wants to horde FEC but keeps getting frustrated:
Prostitution became widely illegal in the early 1910s in the US. Lots of women voters in those years, Clive? Yeah, my point was certainly dumb and you're right, women are historically the drivers of public dislike of prostitution.
As for the sexual revolution, it's certainly relevant. Your argument is essentially 'the sexual revolution has changed women's sexual behavior' (and that's bad, because it's not as easy for me to get laid' and you offer it as a given that these changes are across the board, universal to all American women.
Except that's nonsense. The sexual revolution didn't impact every religious, regional, cultural and racial group of women identically. Thus arguing that it happened is absurd. You need to (and have so far completely failed) to take it a step further.
As for laissez-faire, I wasn't advocating that we should do so, I was approaching your argument on its own merits. In your misogynistic world view, women's sexuality is a commodity men have rights to. Men compete for these commodities. This competition takes the form of 'most sexually desirable male gets the most sexual commodities'. Again, this is your own argument.
You're the one who wants to abandon this free market competition of sexuality and introduce another element to it. You don't want a hands-off approach to this sexual competition, you want a competition you feel you can win. You know, a competition where you can pay women to ignore your personality.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Wow Rakeesh, you distort and deliberately misread what I say and respond to it, and quite frankly I'm tired of explaining, and tired of your nasty insults. Good night.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'm seriously beginning to wonder if Sa'eed is literally incapable of considering sexuality in the context of social and romantic relationships, trust, love, kindness, laughter, personality, and happenstance, or if he's being facetious in talking about it as if it was a literal commodity being horded by "Alpha Males." Because if he is serious, it's actually really sad that he has no understanding of love, or what a relationship with a woman is actually like. It's not something that can be quantified or bought.
Anyway, apart from MRA (a cause a think actually has some merit, but who's supporters I find mostly cringeworthy) and any associated political issues, I want to say it's pretty clear you don't even understand women enough to treat them like human beings. And until you're able to listen to, understand, and respect a woman, and treat her with the dignity and respect yourself would want to be treated with, you're not going to have any luck with dating. This has nothing to do with Alpha Males stealing all the women. It has everything to do with your own fear and hatred of women.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: ...we just need to extend the sexual libertarianism a bit more as to allow involuntarily celibate men the option of buying sex.
As a registered libertarian I agree with the concept of legalizing prostitution.
But seriously. With little to no chance of offspring due to condoms, with no emotional attachment to the person, with no on going relationship...how is sex better then masturbation? When I was a virgin a long long time ago I might have thought otherwise, but seriously, if it's just a stranger you are paying, keep your money and limit your risk of STDs and just do it yourself!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's been my question all along. If it's really just a question of sexual release for these poor men who can't get any, they can masturbate, right? But it's actually about power: they want to demonstrate that they can get sex with a woman, not that they can achieve sexual release. In this scenario, a prostitute is actually an emotional stand-in for their conquest; she's serving as both a prop and a therapist as much as she is a fleshlight.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
If ya'll think masturbation is as good as sex, I don't think you're having the right type of sex.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I don't want to really change the rules. Things are mostly fine, we just need to extend the sexual libertarianism a bit more as to allow involuntarily celibate men the option of buying sex.
Dude, how much money do you have? Because any woman who is selling sex as a choice will get to be choosy about her clientele.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If ya'll think masturbation is as good as sex, I don't think you're having the right type of sex.
Fair enough. But the difference in sensation is not so severe, in my opinion, that it is necessary to rejigger society to democratize access to vaginas.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I don't want to really change the rules. Things are mostly fine, we just need to extend the sexual libertarianism a bit more as to allow involuntarily celibate men the option of buying sex.
Dude, how much money do you have? Because any woman who is selling sex as a choice will get to be choosy about her clientele.
Ha, good point. Of course it's easier to understand this when you realize Clive is convinced women are generally already prostitutes.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dude, how much money do you have? Because any woman who is selling sex as a choice will get to be choosy about her clientele.
Maybe, maybe not. I have no experience with prostitutes having never bought one's services before but I was quite friendly with an ex-stripper for a while. I used to talk to her about the business all the time. She said she got out of it because most of the other girls would do just about anything for $25 and she felt that she just couldn't compete with that unless she did it herself. It got to the point where all the regulars expected every girl to be available but once they figured out that she wasn't, the tips dried up.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Okay that said Sa'eed, some of the things you're saying are pretty sexist. I mean. Jeez. And somewhere there are members of the opposite sex that face some of the same obstacles you do and men don't have a monopoly on them.
The average woman who isn't obese is attractive to hundreds of millions of men in her teens and 20s and maybe even into her 30s. The only women who have problems with dating and attracting men are the truly unfortunate ones when it comes to looks, and I'm talking ones with genetic abnormalities or some such.
Have you noticed how men gossip about women being flat-chested? No ass? Freckle-faced? Boy body? Too skinny? Too manly? Too strong? Too pasty? Too plain? Men put women under a microscope all the time. Especially the "alpha males". The petty differences between different women absolutely generally matter to them. And a lot of other men too.
[ July 24, 2013, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I don't want to really change the rules. Things are mostly fine, we just need to extend the sexual libertarianism a bit more as to allow involuntarily celibate men the option of buying sex.
Dude, how much money do you have? Because any woman who is selling sex as a choice will get to be choosy about her clientele.
That's why I'm championing legalization. It would increase the quantity and quality of prostitutes and prices would drop in recessions.
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Okay that said Sa'eed, some of the things you're saying are pretty sexist. I mean. Jeez. And somewhere there are members of the opposite sex that face some of the same obstacles you do and men don't have a monopoly on them.
The average woman who isn't obese is attractive to hundreds of millions of men in her teens and 20s and maybe even into her 30s. The only women who have problems with dating and attracting men are the truly unfortunate ones when it comes to looks, and I'm talking ones with genetic abnormalities or some such.
Have you noticed how men gossip about women being flat-chested? No ass? Freckle-faced? Boy body? Too skinny? Too manly? Too strong? Too pasty? Too plain? Men put women under a microscope all the time. Especially the "alpha males". The petty differences between different women absolutely generally matter to them.
Guys can be obnoxiously judgmental about these sort of things, but normal guys who pretend they're deal breakers are just posturing. It's only the alpha males who can afford to really screen women on such basis, not that they always do. Often mere novelty trumps everything else for these sex hoarders.
[ July 24, 2013, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If ya'll think masturbation is as good as sex, I don't think you're having the right type of sex.
Fair enough. But the difference in sensation is not so severe, in my opinion, that it is necessary to rejigger society to democratize access to vaginas.
So legalizing prostitution would be rejiggering society?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:normal guys who pretend they're deal breakers are just posturing
So you'd sleep with just about anybody if they were available?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Okay that said Sa'eed, some of the things you're saying are pretty sexist. I mean. Jeez. And somewhere there are members of the opposite sex that face some of the same obstacles you do and men don't have a monopoly on them.
The average woman who isn't obese is attractive to hundreds of millions of men in her teens and 20s and maybe even into her 30s. The only women who have problems with dating and attracting men are the truly unfortunate ones when it comes to looks, and I'm talking ones with genetic abnormalities or some such.
Have you noticed how men gossip about women being flat-chested? No ass? Freckle-faced? Boy body? Too skinny? Too manly? Too strong? Too pasty? Too plain? Men put women under a microscope all the time. Especially the "alpha males". The petty differences between different women absolutely generally matter to them.
Guys can be obnoxiously judgmental about these sort of things, but normal guys who pretend they're deal breakers are just posturing. It's only the alpha males who can afford to really screen women on such basis.
Plenty of them still do. And, if the studs "screen" their partners and aren't available, then women have to...date everyone else.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
See edit.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:normal guys who pretend they're deal breakers are just posturing
So you'd sleep with just about anybody if they were available?
If my sex rank is a 6, I would sleep with women in the 4-10 range.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I'm gonna barf.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I've never had a ten but I once had five twos.
I think that should count. Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I'm gonna barf.
sorry bro
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: I've never had a ten but I once had five twos.
I think that should count.
It only counts if it was at the same time.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
If I'm a girl whose a 5 sex rank, then my range is going to be 4-infinity. But if that guy is just looking for a cum dumpster then subtract the median by three.
[ July 24, 2013, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:If my sex rank is a 6...
For the sake of argument, granting the silly notion that everyone has a "sex rank"... The biggest flaw with your theory is that most guys are finding mates. And most of us are in the middle of your bell curve, not at the end with your "alphas".
I'd probably be a 5-6 myself on your scale, not anything resembling an "alpha male". And I did just fine in the female interest department, thanks. I think most guys arguing against you are themselves counter-examples to your claims.
I think there are two real problems, in your case. The first is that you'd probably rate 2-3 points lower than you think you do. Perhaps you are average looking, but there's more to sexual attraction than pure appearance.
The other problem is that when you meet a 6, you're probably going to rate her as a 3 because she'd had sex in the past. Which is particularly ironic, considering you're the one looking to have sex with whores.
-----------------------------------------------
I'm actually a proponent of legal prostitution myself, but your problems have nothing to do with the availability of sex-workers.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
This thread's TLDR
What
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Reading through some of these articles and all the problems that have occurred where it is legal, I think I have figured out how to solve all these problems. Prostitutes need to unionize.
As crazy as that may sound and as impossible as it would probably be for them to do it, I seriously think it would solve most of their problems. Normally my somewhat libertarian views make me somewhat (but not completely) anti-union and a government forcing people to unionize is even worse but in this case, I think they should. If you're going to legalize prostitution, they need to join the union to be licensed.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I think most guys arguing against you are themselves counter-examples to your claims.
Whatever, brah, I'm like totally an Alpha. I only post on this forum with you nerds because sometimes I get bored of having sex with women and lifting weights all the time.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go monopolize some more female erotic capital. Nerds.
*Insert shirtless photo here*
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:If my sex rank is a 6...
For the sake of argument, granting the silly notion that everyone has a "sex rank"... The biggest flaw with your theory is that most guys are finding mates. And most of us are in the middle of your bell curve, not at the end with your "alphas".
Eventually, but there is a shortage of available 18 to 28 year old women, because not only are they dating men their own age, but they're also dating men well into their 30s. Women aged 18 to 30 are also being competed for by guys into their 30s and 40s. This wasn't an issue when everyone married young and it was hard to get divorced. Back then everyone matched up in sex rank and every man got a young woman, with whom he grew old and he never became too perturbed by her inevitability sagging looks, because he had bonded with her in her prime and developed "wife goggles" for her. Most people today end up pairing up but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of men are left out in the cold in their teens and 20s due to their female peers being at the height of their sexual value and being also sought by men considerably older.
quote: I'd probably be a 5-6 myself on your scale, not anything resembling an "alpha male". And I did just fine in the female interest department, thanks. I think most guys arguing against you are themselves counter-examples to your claims.
I think there are two real problems, in your case. The first is that you'd probably rate 2-3 points lower than you think you do. Perhaps you are average looking, but there's more to sexual attraction than pure appearance.
Even women who are 3's are scarce in their prime years because the 5's have to dip down due to the pressure from the guys above them.
quote:The other problem is that when you meet a 6, you're probably going to rate her as a 3 because she'd had sex in the past. Which is particularly ironic, considering you're the one looking to have sex with whores.
I don't know where this point came from. By some age you have no right to expect to date virginal women.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Women aged 18 to 30 are also being competed for by guys into their 30s and 40s.
um Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Back then everyone matched up in sex rank and every man got a young woman, with whom he grew old and he never became too perturbed by her inevitability sagging looks, because he had bonded with her in her prime and developed "wife goggles" for her.
Yeah, I can't imagine why it's hard for you to talk attractive women into sexy times.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
if only women were stopped from collectively inflating the value of sex, he could have his guaranteed sex-rank-match female delivered to him like in the Good Old Days when this happened to everyone yeah this is definitely that thread
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Have you considered a mail order bride, Sa'eed? You could learn her language, and make it as difficult as possible for her to learn English. That would solve most of your problems, right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
well, we do know he was shopping around for a surrogate he could impregnate, because while he's not too excited with the whole dealing with females thing, he still wants to breed.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I don't know where this point came from. By some age you have no right to expect to date virginal women.
Its something I assumed, based on your views on women who choose to "slut it up". It appears to have been a misjudgement, which is a pleasant surprise to me.
quote:Even women who are 3's are scarce in their prime years because the 5's have to dip down due to the pressure from the guys above them.
I am curious on what data (even anecdotal) you are basing this on, beyond your own rejection.
Having myself had little difficulty securing a mate in her prime, and having friends and family that pretty much all did the same, it seems obviously false.
With no "dipping", mind you. When rating for attractiveness, I'd say that I have more guy friends with women who are "out of their league" looks wise than vice-versa.
Are we just all "alphas" and don't know it? If so, perhaps I need to join Dogbreath at the gym...
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I don't want to really change the rules. Things are mostly fine, we just need to extend the sexual libertarianism a bit more as to allow involuntarily celibate men the option of buying sex.
Dude, how much money do you have? Because any woman who is selling sex as a choice will get to be choosy about her clientele.
That's why I'm championing legalization. It would increase the quantity and quality of prostitutes and prices would drop in recessions.
I've never utilized their services, but in the next county over from Las Vegas here lies Nye county, where prostitution is legal. It takes about 45 minutes to get there from the Las Vegas strip. Hey, they need payroll and Human Resources services too!
I can tell you that the price, quality, and quantity you speak of isn't there. What you do get is however is a semblance of safety, as each girl must be tested for STD's on a regular basis.
A couple of these establishments also have men. The men tend to cost a LOT more and the selection process to become an employee is VERY difficult. Unless you could double for an extra on Spartacus, you probably won't even be considered.
That being said, I'm for legalizing it. In an age where people want full control over their bodies and want the freedom to do with it what they want, why not? In fact, if more men could utilize prostitution legally, it may bring the single parent household and abortion rates down.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Ugh, going to Nevada for that purpose alone seems so tawdry.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I don't know where this point came from. By some age you have no right to expect to date virginal women.
Its something I assumed, based on your views on women who choose to "slut it up". It appears to have been a misjudgement, which is a pleasant surprise to me.
quote:Even women who are 3's are scarce in their prime years because the 5's have to dip down due to the pressure from the guys above them.
I am curious on what data (even anecdotal) you are basing this on, beyond your own rejection.
It's mainly based on reasoning and what I observe in the wide culture at large, how no one bats an eye that George Clooney keeps dating women in their best years and then upgrades to a younger woman when his current girlfriend hits her mid 30s, and how he's been doing that for more than two decades without even needing to hide it. If the culture at large is okay with that in it's okay with some very personable bar tender doing the same thing, some divorced guy remarrying a woman thirteen years younger than his previous wife, in short, some men get the best years of multiple women. I mean isn't this obvious? And isn't that surely going to lead to a shortage not just of attractive women but even average women in their 20s?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Ugh, going to Nevada for that purpose alone seems so tawdry.
Plus I looked at the prices and they're sky high.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I really need to stop reading this thread. It hurts my soul. Or more to point, Sa'eed's comments make me want to take a shower and scrub with iodine.
It's no secret I don't get along with Samp but I think he is right right right about this one.
Blarg!
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I'm sorry I make you guys feel uncomfortable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Last time I checked, flights within the US were fairly cheap. Where in the US are you travelling from?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Uncomfortable isn't the word I'd use. Feeling pity is more accurate, for me, at least. If you really believe all of this, or more importantly, if you allow these beliefs to sabotage any chance you have of happiness with a woman when it is so very clear that the lack of such a relationship is why you are so angry and bitter, then it's very sad.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It's mainly based on reasoning and what I observe in the wide culture at large, how no one bats an eye that George Clooney keeps dating women in their best years and then upgrades to a younger woman when his current girlfriend hits her mid 30s, and how he's been doing that for more than two decades without even needing to hide it. If the culture at large is okay with that in it's okay with some very personable bar tender doing the same thing, some divorced guy remarrying a woman thirteen years younger than his previous wife, in short, some men get the best years of multiple women. I mean isn't this obvious? And isn't that surely going to lead to a shortage not just of attractive women but even average women in their 20s?
Wow. I don't think I've ever met anyone as whiny as you.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Mariah Carey stole Nick Cannon away from us. Will we tolerate this?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I really need to stop reading this thread. It hurts my soul. Or more to point, Sa'eed's comments make me want to take a shower and scrub with iodine.
It's no secret I don't get along with Samp but I think he is right right right about this one.
Blarg!
I can't imagine many sane people would think he's wrong in this case.
I too feel a mixture of pity and disgust. Mostly pity, because barring a radical change of heart, his own horribly twisted worldview will keep him from ever finding any real satisfaction. And he'll keep blaming women for it, which isn't a healthy or safe thing at all, especially for any women he knows.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not convinced that any of this is real.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not convinced that any of this is real.
next step: discussing Pick Up Artist systems, negging, and forays into neuro-linguistic programming, perhaps discussing the PUA blogs and subreddits you post in
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
Interesting thread to read.
Sa'eed, You remind me of several men I've known, and slightly of myself, when I was 10+ years younger. I'm also aware of the online culture of virginal young men, who have made this kind of whining into a lifestyle.
At this point it's pretty much impossible for you to not to know, how illogical your arguments are. Others have already repeatedly pointed out the massive flaws in your reasoning.
You are extremely transparent. It's obvious that you have a deep fear of women, and you've been so traumatized by other people, (Probably by your mother, but it could be other(s)), that you throw all your intellect out of the window, and replace it with blind emotion. It sounds like you're still re-living your childhood/teenage traumas.
The thing is, you obviously have trouble establishing a relationship with a woman, due to your fear. But roughly 95% of men don't have this problem. Yes, at least 95% of men actually find nice relationships. And remarkably, with women, it's the same 95%.
The "low value" men and women don't have any trouble finding company. They date each other. This can be very easily observed all around you. The 5% who don't end up in relationship, are so for very different reasons. Some are severely ugly, some extremely anti-social, some are heavily traumatized, etc. And even the great majority of them *could* have relationships, but they choose to not to pursue them.
And the fact is that the successful 95% actually has all kinds of men and women: Ugly, fat, shy, nerdy, stupid, anti-social, awkward, poor, boring, crippled, etc.
Since you obviously consider yourself a low-value man, there is very easy fix to your problem: Date low-value women. That's what other low-value men do. If you want to attract higher value women, then you have to raise your own value. Go to gym, get a stylist, get speech courses, get interesting hobbies, etc. Go out there and meet all kinds of people, the any chance you got.
It's actually all really easy and logical, but you have to do the work. You might feel that you are entitled to getting things you don't really work for (A lot of people feel this kind of entitlement).
But you're not entitled to anything. Life is not a movie. There is no beautiful princess that's gonna save you.
If it helps you boost your sexual self-esteem a bit, you can try that prostitute (Assuming she's and adult, and in the profession at her own will). Although I wouldn't be too surprised, if you would be too scared to actually have sex with a prostitute, since she is also a woman. And you're just very scared of women.
In Nevada at least there are legal brothels.
...I can't also help thinking, that you are very well aware of how poorly your worldview holds logical scrutiny. I've noticed an interesting trend with men who hold this kind of worldview:
A lot of them really, really want to passively-aggressively express, how little women like the kind of men they are. This is what you are expressing as well, and you're not really bothered at all, that everyone notices you are really talking about yourself.
I think that partially you're looking for pity. I think you want other people to say that it's really terrible that you have been mistreated in life, that it's really unfair how unpopular you are, and how sad it is that you struggle so much.
And I do feel genuinely sorry for you. But not for those reasons. I'm sorry that you were *repeatedly emotionally abused* when you were younger. And yes, it shouldn't have happened. People shouldn't treat children like that.
Also I think you are looking for approval. Despite your arguing, you would be happy, if a woman in this thread would praise your intellect and knowledge. It would make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Particularly since you are not used to receiving that kind of feedback from women, at all.
But women don't say nice things to you, if you are at first waging some illogical war on them. You just frustrate them, and they even assume you might want to hurt them, if you had a chance. They try to stay away from you. They are smart and logical for acting so.
All in all, I'm sorry for the kid that you once were, and sorry that you got so badly hurt. But you just gotta let go of the past, live today, and look in the future.
[ July 25, 2013, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not convinced that any of this is real.
Involuntary celibacy is real.
Yes. For women too. Grown ups deal with it. I meant that I am not convinced that you are real.
[ July 25, 2013, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: Interesting thread to read.
Sa'eed, You remind me of several men I've known, and slightly of myself, when I was 10+ years younger. I'm also aware of the online culture of virginal young men, who have made this kind of whining into a lifestyle.
At this point it's pretty much impossible for you to not to know, how illogical your arguments are. Others have already repeatedly pointed out the massive flaws in your reasoning.
You are extremely transparent. It's obvious that you have a deep fear of women, and you've been so traumatized by other people, (Probably by your mother, but it could be other(s)), that you throw all your intellect out of the window, and replace it with blind emotion. It sounds like you're still re-living your childhood/teenage traumas.
The thing is, you obviously have trouble establishing a relationship with a woman, due to your fear. But roughly 95% of men don't have this problem. Yes, at least 95% of men actually find nice relationships. And remarkably, with women, it's the same 95%.
The "low value" men and women don't have any trouble finding company. They date each other. This can be very easily observed all around you. The 5% who don't end up in relationship, are so for very different reasons. Some are severely ugly, some extremely anti-social, some are heavily traumatized, etc. And even the great majority of them *could* have relationships, but they choose to not to pursue them.
And the fact is that the successful 95% actually has all kinds of men and women: Ugly, fat, shy, nerdy, stupid, anti-social, awkward, poor, boring, crippled, etc.
Since you obviously consider yourself a low-value man, there is very easy fix to your problem: Date low-value women. That's what other low-value men do. If you want to attract higher value women, then you have to raise your own value. Go to gym, get a stylist, get speech courses, get interesting hobbies, etc. Go out there and meet all kinds of people, the any chance you got.
It's actually all really easy and logical, but you have to do the work. You might feel that you are entitled to getting things you don't really work for (A lot of people feel this kind of entitlement).
But you're not entitled to anything. Life is not a movie. There is no beautiful princess that's gonna save you.
If it helps you boost your sexual self-esteem a bit, you can try that prostitute (Assuming she's and adult, and in the profession at her own will). Although I wouldn't be too surprised, if you would be too scared to actually have sex with a prostitute, since she is also a woman. And you're just very scared of women.
In Nevada at least there are legal brothels.
...I can't also help thinking, that you are very well aware of how poorly your worldview holds logical scrutiny. I've noticed an interesting trend with men who hold this kind of worldview:
A lot of them really, really want to passively-aggressively express, how little women like the kind of men they are. This is what you are expressing as well, and you're not really bothered at all, that everyone notices you are really talking about yourself.
I think that partially you're looking for pity. I think you want other people to say that it's really terrible that you have been mistreated in life, that it's really unfair how unpopular you are, and how sad it is that you struggle so much.
And I do feel genuinely sorry for you. But not for those reasons. I'm sorry that you were *repeatedly emotionally abused* when you were younger. And yes, it shouldn't have happened. People shouldn't treat children like that.
Also I think you are looking for approval. Despite your arguing, you would be happy, if a woman in this thread would praise your intellect and knowledge. It would make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Particularly since you are not used to receiving that kind of feedback from women, at all.
But women don't say nice things to you, if you are at first waging some illogical war on them. You just frustrate them, and they even assume you might want to hurt them, if you had a chance. They try to stay away from you. They are smart and logical for acting so.
All in all, I'm sorry for the kid that you once were, and sorry that you got so badly hurt. But you just gotta let go of the past, live today, and look in the future.
I read this post a couple of hours ago. Some of it is on the mark, and some of it is not (I'm not trying to fish for complements from female posters...lol.) In any case, I read it a couple of times and thought about it and since you obviously took some time to write it deserves this acknowledgement from me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sa'eed...one principal I'd like to share with you: if you can't love yourself, you can't love someone else. Now, when it comes to sex, it can be as different as the word "transportation" can mean a quarter million dollar Bently or a crowded public bus. That is to say, sex can be harmful to healing, tender to rough, meaningful to meaningless. But when one feels unhappy or isolated they tend to look for what is missing in their life and say "if only I had <fill in the blank> I would be happy". To me, sex without emotional attachment is meanngless friction. And the big problem is is we don't want meaningless friction or else we would never leave or bedrooms except for more porn and tissues. So, either that sex is so unfulfilling that it only pushes you deeper into depression and loneliness or even worse you try and convince yourself that that relative stranger who you just bedded is the love of your life, the one missing piece of the puzzle, the only thing keeping you afloat in a dark sea. The depression is actually an easier road.
Not to mention that male sexual proformance is -vastly- affected by emotions. And if you are eager yet afraid and on top of all of that angry at your isolation you might not be able to get it up at all.
Now imagine for a second you let go of the thought that sex is a man's right, that women are a resource that can be depeated or withheld from you. Look at sex as the ultimate intimacy, the way you can physically demonstrate your emotional feelings for another human being. Would you really want to squander such a delicate and vital gift, would you really want to share that closeness with a totak stranger who is only interested in your money?
My children are the living embodiment of my wife and my love. Our sex is sacred and presious and I wouldn't trade her for a rotating harum of super models and a giant bag cash.
What you seek is not sex. Ejaculating into a woman will not make you happy.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm posting to thank Sa'eed for getting the spelling of "hoard" correct eventually.
I think it's pretty rough to feel like you can't successfully compete for romantic attention. However, objectifying people and treating that attention like a commodity are not good solutions.
Paid-for sex doesn't really compensate for the problem in a very effective way. I understand wanting it, and even finding it satisfying in a way, but it's not going to solve the problem of feeling like an outsider who can't win at attracting people. It will probably only compound that.
I don't know a good solution. But looking at society, or those who are "hoarding" what you want, isn't going to get you anywhere.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Oh cool, the tired wrong historical fallacy that everybody in the US are still in thrall to Puritanism. Combined with the other historical fallacy that Puritans hated sex, and were scared of it.
Let's condemn the present by misrepresenting the past! Like, remember how we all love same-sex marriage because The Founding Fathers liked to hangout for extended periods of time in a closed door conference room?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can see why you appreciated the 'article', Clive. It didn't take long at all to sneer at a woman for failure to marry and breed.
Remember: it's a gross systemic social injustice that make women shun you, and it's definitely not the palpable scorn you hold for women that they (and men) can scent a mile off upwind.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You guys are braver than I to follow that link.
Sa'eed: When you never responded, I shrugged internally...but to ignore me for weeks then post a link as an afirmation of your horribly self destructive beliefs...well, I guess I'm just a tad disappointed. But hey, maybe this thread wasn't a cry for help, and I was just waisting my time in here at all.
Female erotic currency. How ghastly.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Oh cool, the tired wrong historical fallacy that everybody in the US are still in thrall to Puritanism. Combined with the other historical fallacy that Puritans hated sex, and were scared of it.
Let's condemn the present by misrepresenting the past! Like, remember how we all love same-sex marriage because The Founding Fathers liked to hangout for extended periods of time in a closed door conference room?
It wasn't the puritanism angle that I found interesting as much as the sexual economics side, which was my focus. And they used the same case I did.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You guys are braver than I to follow that link.
Sa'eed: When you never responded, I shrugged internally...but to ignore me for weeks then post a link as an afirmation of your horribly self destructive beliefs...well, I guess I'm just a tad disappointed. But hey, maybe this thread wasn't a cry for help, and I was just waisting my time in here at all.
Female erotic currency. How ghastly.
Sorry Stone Wolf! You and that other fellow are right about me! But what I think is also right!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm a bit confused how we can all be right.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Well, you say "what you seek is not sex. Ejaculating into a woman will not make you happy." I agree with that. At the same time, I think prostitution should be legal and those men in the OP did not deserve to have their desires thwarted and shamed in a way real criminals who do horrible things aren't shamed.
edit: good night!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As a libertarian I tend to agree in theory that prostitution should be legal, regulated and taxed. However that does not mean that current johns of illegal prosititution are guilt free of all the evil shjt that goes along with illegal prosititution, like human trafficing, using hard drugs or violence to keep women pliant or whatever other nefarious tactics are nessessary to keep an underground business running.
But that isn't even the point. -Thinking- about sex in the terms you outlined prevent you from ever partaking in a meaningful or emotionally fulfilling relationship with the opposite gender.
Do yourself a huge favor and banish the concept of "female sexual currancy" and just make a few friends who happen to be girls. Get know some women, learn to like women, then fall in love with one. And then think about sex. In that order.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As a libertarian I tend to agree in theory that prostitution should be legal, regulated and taxed. However that does not mean that current johns of illegal prosititution are guilt free of all the evil shjt that goes along with illegal prosititution, like human trafficing, using hard drugs or violence to keep women pliant or whatever other nefarious tactics are nessessary to keep an underground business running.
Overwrought concern about "human trafficking" and "pimps" is how both feminists and the religious right frame their objections to prostitution, because their too chicken-shit to say " we don't think men should have the option of purchasable sex." The statistics concerning "human trafficking" are slippery and elusive, because it conflates women who immigrate with the purpose of being working girls with human smuggling/slavery. There are quite a few organizations that purport to fight "human trafficking" and seek to rescue prostitutes, who most often don't want to be rescued. Basically, a woman who says "I think I'd be able to make money in that country by working as a prostitute" = trafficked woman. It's bs.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, as long as you get to angrily shake your fist as someone for spreading lies and being cowards then...Mission Accomplished ™
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I don't think you're spreading lies, not deliberately anyway. I think it's pretty counter-intuitive that "human trafficking" has basically become a euphemism for prostitution. But I find it interesting when people say "I'm a libertarian on this matter" but then go on to endorse the main arguments of those who want to prohibit it. I recently discovered this feminist writer through Salon.com, and she's made a career out of fighting the human-trafficking narrative:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As a libertarian I tend to agree in theory that prostitution should be legal, regulated and taxed. However that does not mean that current johns of illegal prosititution are guilt free of all the evil shjt that goes along with illegal prosititution, like human trafficing, using hard drugs or violence to keep women pliant or whatever other nefarious tactics are nessessary to keep an underground business running.
Overwrought concern about "human trafficking" and "pimps" is how both feminists and the religious right frame their objections to prostitution, because their too chicken-shit to say " we don't think men should have the option of purchasable sex." The statistics concerning "human trafficking" are slippery and elusive, because it conflates women who immigrate with the purpose of being working girls with human smuggling/slavery. There are quite a few organizations that purport to fight "human trafficking" and seek to rescue prostitutes, who most often don't want to be rescued. Basically, a woman who says "I think I'd be able to make money in that country by working as a prostitute" = trafficked woman. It's bs.
Given your well known-you've even admitted to it on occasion-contempt for women and your far-from-even handed concern for justice for the genders, is there any reason anyone should take what you say seriously as anything other than an affirmation of your pre-existing sexism and misogyny? "Pimps? Piffle! Feminazis just don't want men to have sex!" "Human-trafficking? That's complicated. Feminazis (and oh, yeah, conservatives) just hate men."
But listen, dude, people have been trying here for some time now when you actually let up on the female fear/hate to try and empathize with you and offer helpful advice, only to have it ignored with a shrug of your shoulders to be followed by, days or weeks or months later, more of the same. Since you've already admitted that much of this contempt for women on your part is due to your own experience with rejection, I wonder-do these stories seem even more compelling and infuriating after another dissatisfied experience at the hands of a woman?
You don't have to be as angry at and afraid of women as you are. Just like dudes, they're not bad people at all. But right now your 'compelling article' is one which doesn't go five paragraphs (or was it six?) without sneering at a woman for her appearance and not being a married mother. This, to you, is a sign of change a coming. I'd wonder as others have lately if there's something in the water, but then you've been here awhile, haven't you? Afraid of women and proud of it for years now, I think, under one name or another, which you sometimes admit to and others deny.
Which begs a question: in the past, you've often failed to muster up the...dignity? Guts? Simple civility? I'm not even sure which is most apt...to not flagrantly lie on the Internet. So I have to ask...why should some woman want to have sex with you? It's...geeze.
Hehe, anyway, Clive, by all means continue to make other dudes look better by the power of your own example.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I don't think you're spreading lies, not deliberately anyway. I think it's pretty counter-intuitive that "human trafficking" has basically become a euphemism for prostitution. But I find it interesting when people say "I'm a libertarian on this matter" but then go on to endorse the main arguments of those who want to prohibit it. I recently discovered this feminist writer through Salon.com, and she's made a career out of fighting the human-trafficking narrative:
It's a sign of how out of touch you are that you think prostitution is commonly equated to human-trafficking, when in fact human trafficking at all-of any shade-doesn't get much press or political attention period. Feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong by showing us when the last time was a politician at any level made a serious issue out of campaigning on human trafficking-and then show quite a few, to demonstrate how common it is.
But who do you think you're kidding, anyway? Are we supposed to believe now that you'd, y'know, seriously scrutinize the credentials of a brothel you were to visit? "I'm sorry, Madame, but I won't patronize this establishment until I can be sure the women here are well-treated." Out of, what, your long-held and commonly recognized respect for and concern about womens' rights?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
The BBC did some "human trafficking" debate sponsored by the UN some years ago and various bigwigs were in attendance. Laura Agustin was on the panel and she gets yelled at by actress Mira Sorvino:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I don't think you're spreading lies, not deliberately anyway.
I was referring to the "religious right and feminists" not myself.
My point was that instead of focusing on your own life and improving it, it seems, you are more interested in angrily railing against at least partially imagined duplicity, that really doesn't effect you directly.
But hey, I get it man. SO much easier to get pissed at a "group" that has "done you wrong" than actually examine the validity of your beliefs or change, which is seriously hard.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Yes, focusing on societal problems is not focusing on personal problems, but I'm right about these issues. I get a thrill from it, the same thrill that feminists and civil right activists got from their agitation in the 60s.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Lack of legal prostitution is hardly a real "social problem" and comparing the "struggle" of trying to get pay for sex legal with civil/gender rights is not going to gain you any support...to put it gently.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Prostitution is a gender issue. Its prohibition makes men dependent on relationships/marriage for regular sexual activity.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm really sorry you seem to despise women so much and yet are not gay. That would have been easier.
Sex is not and never will be a right. Nor should it be.
Most men are not "dependent" on a relationship for sex, most people -want to be in a relationship-. And those who don't go to a single's bar and get waisted and eff whoever will have them.
Whatever trauma you presumably suffered at a female hand to cause this unbalanced and unhealthy view of sexuality...I am sorry for you for. But please, please seek a healing and do not wrap your wounded soul in an intelectual macro theory that provides emotionial soothing through feeding your anger and isolation.
Be strong enough to be weak. Show the bravery needed to be hurt. Be not okay. You don't need to know the answers, you don't need to have everything figgured out. Start from a place of not knowing and of feeling what you feel and put your feet on a path to letting people in, to healing and growing and trusting and loving.
It is the harder path, but it leads to somewhere worthwhile. You deserve to be loved. And you can be. But it takes bravery and risk and stepping off the comfortable tower you have raised to keep yourself safe. There is no safe. There is only alone.
People are worth the risk, worth the hurt that will come from opening your walls, because, trust me, you will be hurt again. And again. And again. But when you take away that hurt, when no one can get in and touch you, you loose all touch at all. You loose the good that is far more abundant then the bad. The good that gives you strength and tempers your resolve and holds you up when things are bad.
You loose your humanity and become a hollow, brittle shell, so lonley and afraid that you push everyone away for fear that they will break you. So oversensitized by lack of touch that any kindness is seen with suspicion and anger.
It is never too late to pick the hard road and get busy living.
I'm rooting for you Sa'eed. I am holding a hope in my chest just for you.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*wasted
Although I guess getting waisted might be some specific kink I haven't heard of.
Sa'eed, you don't think there's a significant problem with pimps bringing women (and young girls [Edit: and young men and boys, too, I'm sure, but Sa'eed seems to be talking about female prostitutes]) to a country under false pretenses and then forcing them to have sex with johns to pay off their debt?
I think the libertarian point of view on prostitution would skip the taxation and regulation.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think the libertarian point of view on prostitution would skip the taxation and regulation.
There are a lot of different types and beliefs among Libertarians. Me, I believe in liberty for EVERYONE. Since prostitution is an industry that has shown a complete lack of ability to regulate itself, government regulation and enforcement is necessary to insure the liberty of those working in the industry. Such regulation should be kept to an absolute minimum but at least some is required.
As for taxes, well I would rather see prostitution taxed than more necessary everyday things like food or housing.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm really sorry you seem to despise women so much and yet are not gay.
huh?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not that gays despise women, but that he might not be as conflicted if his attraction was to men.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: *wasted
Although I guess getting waisted might be some specific kink I haven't heard of. ... I think the libertarian point of view on prostitution would skip the taxation and regulation.
Hey, not bad for typing that all out on a three inch touch screen with no auto spell check.
Personally I think of libertarian views not as anti government and taxes, just streamlined and self sufficient. Taxing things to pay for it's own overhead is just an elegant solution. Tax cars to for roads, tax bullets to pay for shooter safety classes, tax johns to pay for sex worker's disease screening.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think that's the right way to handle it, but it's not easy. If you look at countries in Europe with legal prostitution, they still struggle to regulate it properly. Just like it's hard to get rid of moonshiners even though there's a legal regulated alcohol industry (but probably worse in the case of prostitution for various reasons including the fact that properly regulated prostitution has a price floor well above the illegal kind, as well as the fact that some of the johns are probably getting off on doing something illegal/secret/dirty).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As well as the kinds of prostitution that never be made legal...like unwilling or underage.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
On a sidenote, I find it interesting to speculate why in the couple of decades, there has been this increasing, visible trend of young men who share much of the same views that have been expressed in this thread. The talk about gender-specific "market values", the contradictionary bitter worship of "alpha males" who get all the women. The right of lower value men to have sex with upper value women, etc.
I blame two things: TV and internet.
I blame TV, because it has brainwashed several generations of men. We are living in a culture, where entertainment and arts have repeatedly fed us a very particular idea since we were born. And they have fed that idea for as 24/7.
The idea is, that all men are entitled to get a beautiful, sexy woman. It doesn't matter whether you are handsome or ugly. Fit or fat. Smart or stupid. Rich or poor. Charming of awkward.
Everyone gets that girl of dreams in the end.
It happens in movies, in novels, in comic books, in songs, in magazines, in music videos. And it especially happens in TV, which for the last 50 years has been our primary source of cultural information. We grew up on TV. TV told us what the world is. TV brought the world together. Before TV, world was a different place. We didn't have quite as many stories being told to us. We didn't get to see quite as many very beautiful women delivered as prizes to men of very different levels of attractiveness.
So when we don't get that beautiful girl, a pact is broken. Everyone else got that girl, in almost every story we have ever been told. Forrest Gump was a silly looking *retard*, but even he got an intelligent supermodel girlfriend.
But we were left without.
That makes you bitter. You were entitled to get the girl of your dreams, it was promised to you since you were just a small child. But she just never came. Most people get over it. They realize that they have to seek for someone who is on their own level in terms of attractiveness (Which means different things to different people).
But some people cling to that sense of entitlement.
So what happens is, these young men refuse to date women who are somewhat ugly, or overweight, or socially awkward. For these men, it feels humiliating to think that you have date someone who isn't pretty, fit, and socially smooth. It used to be different. Back in the old times, people were more willing to settle for what they got. The social pressure from the media, and the sense of entitlement, weren't that strong.
...And about the internet:
The amount of men who feel this sense of entitlement is fairly small. How small? I don't know. Probably only about 1-3%. That's based on anecdotal evidence. But when that 1-3% gangs up in the internet, you get millions and millions of young men making a lot of noise. And that noise we seem to hear more and more every year.
For these men, I think there is a fairly easy solution:
Get drunk. Got to bars and clubs. Talk to all the women who are *not* on the upper or even medium level of your market value system. If you start with 2's, you get to move on to 3's the next year. And to 4's the year after that. Do it for 5 years, and hell, you'll be hitting on the 7's.
It's really that easy. And no, it's not really a humiliation for you to hit on the 2's. Because mostly everyone around you knows that everyone has to work on their own level. Other men or women don't generally give a damn who you are talking to, or who you are dating with. As long as she's a nice person. The other men and women around you are a lot more likely to object to a beautiful, but bitchy girl.
If you combine your attempts in the nightlife with other life-improvement projects, you'll score better. Get a better body, better clothes, a better haircut. Get theatre classes, improvisation classes, speech classes. Learn to play a guitar and join a crappy rock band.
Get hobbies that are of interest to women. Being an interesting person isn't about learning intriguing pick-up lines. It's about living an interesting life, with interesting hobbies. If you play in a band, act in amateur theatre, do mountain-climbing, exotic cooking and poetry, it gives you a lot of interesting things to talk about with women.
Be interesting. You achieve that by doing interesting things in your life.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's odd how that post started out as a critique of creepy sense of entitlement to date at a certain "level" and then turned into advice on how to climb those "levels", complete with a use case for the "market value system". I was thinking maybe the advice would be to get over it, be friendly with people, and seek fulfilling relationships instead of upping your score.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
never get drunk. bad advice.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Especially don't get drunk and sleep with someone if that person is also drunk. You'll probably be raping her.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
On the contrary, for people who have social anxiety problems, or are just awkward with women, a few drinks can be a great help when breaking the ice. It brings relaxation and greater confidence.
Of course, no one finds a sloppy, falling down drunk attractive other then other falling down drunks. But the two aren't exactly the same thing.
As the t-shirt says, "Alcohol, helping ugly people get laid since 3000 BC."
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: On the contrary, for people who have social anxiety problems, or are just awkward with women, a few drinks can be a great help when breaking the ice. It brings relaxation and greater confidence.
Of course, no one finds a sloppy, falling down drunk attractive other then other falling down drunks. But the two aren't exactly the same thing.
As the t-shirt says, "Alcohol, helping ugly people get laid since 3000 BC."
I'm one of those people. I need a few drinks to talk to any stranger but especially an attractive woman. Fortunately I'm quite good at drinking just enough to loosen up without getting drunk.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: On the contrary, for people who have social anxiety problems, or are just awkward with women, a few drinks can be a great help when breaking the ice. It brings relaxation and greater confidence.
Of course, no one finds a sloppy, falling down drunk attractive other then other falling down drunks. But the two aren't exactly the same thing.
As the t-shirt says, "Alcohol, helping ugly people get laid since 3000 BC."
Well then we as people need to find better ways to communicate and socialize with other people without stressing them out then.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Well then we as people need to find better ways to communicate and socialize with other people without stressing them out then. [/QB]
As an introvert with social anxiety, I know of no such thing short of alcohol but I've never sought professional help for it either. But don't misunderstand, I haven't been drunk in probably 15 years or more. I figured out real quick that getting drunk sucked. But a few drinks on social occasions does wonders for my inhibitions. In fact, that's about the only time I drink. I guess I got lucky in that it wasn't addictive for me. Unfortunately, many others are not so lucky so I can't really advocate this approach.
Now that I think about it, every woman I have ever asked out, I had a drink or two in me first. The only exceptions being a couple times when it was the woman that asked me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tuuka -
I agree that's absolutely been an issue (that media have presented picture where any man gets the hot girl or perfect girl or whatever at the end of the story).
This is where you get the bitter "nice guy" meme from, which is a pretty sad little emotional death spiral.
On the other hand, media in the last decade especially has also caused pretty severe body image issues especially among young men. For every episode of King of Queens where fat Kevin James has a hot wife, there are five Abercrombie ads. Attractive men attracting attractive women is far more prevalent in our society than ugly men attracting women.
But I'd also present the flip side, would the media be healthier if it presented ONLY attractive people being together? I mean, I've been in relationships with women way, way more attractive than me. I think they probably liked me for personality reasons rather than looks, not that I'm hideous, but I'm not an even attractive normal looking person let along a model. I'm nondescriptly blah. Isn't that a BETTER message to send? Or would it simple be solved by having less attractive women paired with them?
I also know that there's a whole class of women I won't even bother asking out. If a woman is very attractive, I don't even bother, because I don't play at her level.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I don't have anything to add to this discussion topic directly, but I thought this TED Talk might be of interest in the broader view of sexuality in general: Sex needs a new metaphor
I'd never really thought about the baseball/game analogy that much, though it always viscerally annoyed me as vaguely off-putting and competitive. By the end of this video I was hearing Homer Simpson in my head. "Mmmm... Sex Pizza."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Awesome!
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: It's odd how that post started out as a critique of creepy sense of entitlement to date at a certain "level" and then turned into advice on how to climb those "levels", complete with a use case for the "market value system". I was thinking maybe the advice would be to get over it, be friendly with people, and seek fulfilling relationships instead of upping your score.
That's because my post was intended to the people who suffer of the nice guy syndrome and desperately feel that they *must* do better.
If someone believes in the "market value system", they are unlikely to respond that well to the advice of just getting over it, being friendly, and seeking fulfilling relationships.
They aren't emotionally wired to genuinely believe that advice. They don't feel like getting over it, they think that they are already friendly (Even if clumsily so), and they suffer of low self-esteem, that prevents them from seeking fulfilling relationships where they could find them.
My advice was to start looking for that lost self-esteem with self-improvement hobbies, that get you out of your comfort zone. Because well-chosen hobbies are great at boosting self-esteem. As is alcohol, even if only temporarily. But those temporary few hours can be crucial, when you for the first time really *talk* to an attractive girl. Or when you kiss a girl.
When the effect of alcohol wears off, you are still left with the knowledge that hey, it actually wasn't really that scary at all. You made it! Alcohol also has a nice side-effect of making people feel more attractive, than they might seem when you're sober.
Once you have more self-esteem and more social experience, it's a lot easier to be friendly with people. And there is a distinction between *dumb* friendly and *smart* friendly. Self-esteem combined with smart friendly helps you to establish a fulfilling relationship.
I think that usually the more practical advice you give, the more people listen to it. If you can advice them to *do* something, instead of merely *thinking* something, it gives better results. Your advice is wonderful in principle, but it somewhat equals of merely saying: "Just change they way you think".
People don't really change their attitudes by merely deciding to do so. They change their attitudes when they physically *do* something, gain more life experience, and then reflect on that life experience.
Hobbies and *moderate* drinking of alcohol are safe, easily achievable ways of gaining more positive life experience. They are something you can start doing the next week.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Tuuka -
I agree that's absolutely been an issue (that media have presented picture where any man gets the hot girl or perfect girl or whatever at the end of the story).
This is where you get the bitter "nice guy" meme from, which is a pretty sad little emotional death spiral.
On the other hand, media in the last decade especially has also caused pretty severe body image issues especially among young men. For every episode of King of Queens where fat Kevin James has a hot wife, there are five Abercrombie ads. Attractive men attracting attractive women is far more prevalent in our society than ugly men attracting women.
But I'd also present the flip side, would the media be healthier if it presented ONLY attractive people being together? I mean, I've been in relationships with women way, way more attractive than me. I think they probably liked me for personality reasons rather than looks, not that I'm hideous, but I'm not an even attractive normal looking person let along a model. I'm nondescriptly blah. Isn't that a BETTER message to send? Or would it simple be solved by having less attractive women paired with them?
I also know that there's a whole class of women I won't even bother asking out. If a woman is very attractive, I don't even bother, because I don't play at her level.
This is a complex, interesting question.
I think a part of the problem is that those beautiful women are often characterless trophies, existing primarily to award the man in the end. The woman's only real value is her attractiveness, and her only real function in the story is to be a trophy.
I also think there has actually been a positive change in this. There are more and more active roles for women in stories. They are more like humans, and less like trophies. But we are still dealing with a very long history of trophy-attitude, that became really culturally prevalent with TV, due to the enormous on amount of story content it started feeding to us all.
Regardless, the more you have *real* people in stories, with realistic emotions, the less you have a problem of misleading cultural brainwashing, that supports emotionally damaged people to form skewed world-views.
Just to cite an example: Think of all the countless high school movies where the geeky guy gets the most beautiful girl in the entire school. The ugly and even average looking girls are all ignored in the story, the geeky guy never ever notices their existence. It's very rare for that to go vice versa, for a genuinely geeky girl to get the hottest guy in school. And it's even rarer for the geeky guy, or girl, to find someone who is more or less equally geeky.
Superbad was a terrific film. And I really loved the story of Michael Cera and Martha MacIsaac, because it was realistic, even poignant in many aspects. The two were a good match, vulnerable kids who might easily get together even in real life. But of course they had to spoil that by pairing Jonah Hill together with Emma Stone. Jonah got Emma merely because... He deserved her? Because we liked Jonah, our hero, and he deserved his trophy?
With Michael and Martha, you can understand the attraction. It's based on reality to which I can relate to. With Jonah and Emma, it's much harder to understand. To me it was fake, and misleading.
(I'm sure that in real life Jonah Hill can date very beautiful women. He's rich, famous, powerful and probably very self-confident. But he's character in Superbad was none of those things).
Maybe the real point is to have emotional, intellectual and cultural honesty in the stories that are being told to us. But much of entertainment is about feeding us fantasies, things that we might want to be true, even when they aren't. Those kind of fantasies sell well.
I think experiencing wish-fulfillment fantasies is healthy to an extent, but when culture gets overcrowded with them, it starts getting unhealthy. And we have crossed the line into unhealthiness a long time ago. There is just too much of it, everywhere around us.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
how about: responsibly manage your alcohol intake inside or outside of the context of trying to break the ice with dates, or it'll be causing you more problems than it fixes
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Thanks for the clarifications, Tuukka. I think it's mostly good advice.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The real trap here is believing that these rating systems are real. They are not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Different societys at different times have elevated different features as the ideal and as undesirable. Bigger, paler girls were the ideal as it was easy to be skinny and tanned back in the day. Instead of allowing society's standards decide what you think is attractive, make up your own mind. Because everyone is a "ten" to someone. And it isn't just about physicality; morality, personality, kindness, personal interests, etc all should be a part of what people find attractive in others.
Find your ten. Find the person who thinks you are a ten.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My 10 is Tiffani Thiessen.
But she's taken.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Mila Kunis.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: I think that usually the more practical advice you give, the more people listen to it. If you can advice them to *do* something, instead of merely *thinking* something, it gives better results. Your advice is wonderful in principle, but it somewhat equals of merely saying: "Just change they way you think".
This rings true to me. There's really not a lot you can do to change what traits you're attracted to physically.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The internet freak out to Mila Kunis cutting her hair is one of the creepiest things ever.
(that was Mila Kunis, right?)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Queen Amadala...for the V for Vendetta role me thinks.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Natalie Portman
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
That was several years ago. I remember there being something more recent.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The internet's celebrity obsession in general is a horrible poison that continues to bleed America from the inside. And the transfer of that power by way of celebrity women and objectification is incredibly destructive.
It has an effect on men too, a powerful one both in their perceptions of women and their perceptions of themselves.
Sometimes I wonder if the good the media does outweighs the bad, and it seems like on a day to day basis, the answer is usually no.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)