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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explain the high levels of sex trafficking and criminality involved in prostitution in places where it is legal then, for example Amsterdam.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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]
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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
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: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.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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:
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
A libertarian argument for legal prostitution isn't creepy, but a men's rights argument for legal prostitution pretty much is.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
