View Full Version : where is prositution legal??
Pages :
1
2
3
[
4]
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CFMNH44
08-03-2009, 10:27 PM
If I could make a decent living as a male escort catering to rich women with 6 or higher looks, I probably would. I wish I had thought about this when I was younger, better looking and in great shape.
Yeah, me too, in my next life. Unfortunately most customers for male escorts are likely gay overweight smelly balding dudes…
Hopper
08-04-2009, 06:32 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_J9lzpM1pDHM/Sb94PSSYeJI/AAAAAAAAAD8/LtB3H-tTKnM/s200/superman_pic1-1.jpg
And his sidekick, Stripper Friend.
lmiller22134
08-04-2009, 08:57 AM
Cyril is having trouble adjusting to some social changes that many people are having trouble adjusting too.
1.) That cheap/safe BC (as well as abortions and DNA testing) have made it possible to have casual sex, and sell sex without most of the risks historically people have had.
.
From Cyrils post it is fairly obvious he has no problem with casual sex, in fact, i quoted him a few posts back where he said that pussy is god's gift to men and therefore it should be free. His only problem is the thought of having to pay for it. He doesnt want to keep it semi rare, he wants to keep it common, and FREE.
xdamage
08-04-2009, 09:47 AM
From Cyrils post it is fairly obvious he has no problem with casual sex, in fact, i quoted him a few posts back where he said that pussy is god's gift to men and therefore it should be free. His only problem is the thought of having to pay for it. He doesnt want to keep it semi rare, he wants to keep it common, and FREE.
Ah okay you read him differently then I. Some of his posts suggested he does not have casual sex, but only with his wife. However he has it in his head that sex with his wife has meaning because she provides it for "free" (aka out of love for him) and that is somehow a God given meaning, a special thing that is somehow different then so much else humans trade.
As several have pointed out, it's not free, it's just the arranged trade they make... he provides something (whatever it is, emotional support? security? funds? something) and she provides somethings as well (including exclusive sex with him). He thinks of at as "free" because it strokes his ego to believe so but there is actually a barter occurring and one of the assets being bartered is the sex (and sexual exclusivity in his case).
bem401
08-04-2009, 04:52 PM
The debate goes on.....
http://www.920whjj.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=122060&article=5828379
My guess is the loophole will not be closed anytime soon.
Cyril
08-04-2009, 07:32 PM
And his sidekick, Stripper Friend.
Very succinct.
lmiller22134
08-04-2009, 08:58 PM
Ah okay you read him differently then I. Some of his posts suggested he does not have casual sex, but only with his wife. However he has it in his head that sex with his wife has meaning because she provides it for "free" (aka out of love for him) and that is somehow a God given meaning, a special thing that is somehow different then so much else humans trade.
As several have pointed out, it's not free, it's just the arranged trade they make... he provides something (whatever it is, emotional support? security? funds? something) and she provides somethings as well (including exclusive sex with him). He thinks of at as "free" because it strokes his ego to believe so but there is actually a barter occurring and one of the assets being bartered is the sex (and sexual exclusivity in his case).
You totally did not read him wrong, he is just contradictory and hypocritical. From some of his post it would MAKE SENSE if he was against casual sex because he speaks about how prostitution is exploitation. Unfortunately, Cyril does not seem to have much common sense.
Cyril
08-04-2009, 09:24 PM
You totally did not read him wrong, he is just contradictory and hypocritical. From some of his post it would MAKE SENSE if he was against casual sex because he speaks about how prostitution is exploitation. Unfortunately, Cyril does not seem to have much common sense.
I do not judge others on the issue of prostitution or marital fidelity. However, I believe that the prostitution is the worst form of exploitation of women which exists in USA.
Regarding marital fidelity, I believe it is a bad idea for married men to have mistresses or girlfriends. But once again, I am not about judging others because we are all humans and we all make mistakes.
I have never claimed to be perfect. Also, keep in mind, our views change as we learn of new realities. So, we are not stagnant in our belief system, e.g., I used to have a very different view on strippers when I joined this forum than today because of all the new things I learned since then.
Are you looking for pure black and pure white? If so, that does not exist in this world. You have to be willing to explore the gray. Unless you do that, you will miss the essence of this universe.
babybambi08
08-04-2009, 11:35 PM
its agreed you are just mad bc you have to pay for pussyyy and you dont want to admit it.. I think it would be fun just for laughs to make a poll!!?? =) just for fun
Earl_the_Pearl
08-04-2009, 11:43 PM
its agreed you are just mad bc you have to pay for pussyyy Point of order; Johns don't pay for pussy; they pay for them to leave.
mediocrity
08-05-2009, 01:08 AM
Point of order; Johns don't pay for pussy; they pay for them to leave.
Guess it goes both ways; prostitutes don't pay for cock, they pay their bills and GTFO without the waaaahmbulance coming to call.
mediocrity
08-05-2009, 01:12 AM
I thought I was the "Lieutenant Save the Ho". I did not realize I got promoted. Thanks for the good news!
You are such a lose bus.
men paying women for sex isnt demeaning to women. men expecting women to give it up for free because pussy is gods gift to men, is incredibly demeaning, degrading, and humiliating. Why do you keep ignoring my posts? You already posted that your real reason for hating prostitution is because you think pussy should be free.
You're absolutely right.
And his sidekick, Stripper Friend.
Aww, you're trying to hurt me. Too bad I'm smarter than you, ass face.
Melonie
08-05-2009, 01:16 AM
Point of order; Johns don't pay for pussy; they pay for them to leave
at least according to Charlie Sheen ... who actually said this in court !
(snip)The great man was asked by a judge at one of his many court appearances (this was either a divorce hearing, or, quite possibly, the Heidi Fleiss trial - it's hard to keep track when it comes to Charlie Sheen, court hearings and prostitutes) why a man of his stature would need to pay women to have sex with him. He famously (and possibly apocryphally) explained that he didn't pay them to have sex, he paid them to leave afterwards."(snip)
(snip)Sheen's point was, of course, that his use of prostitutes differed from the traditional, or the expected. Other men might consider consulting a professional because they were otherwise unable to persuade women to sleep with them. Sheen, by contrast, suffered with women who wanted a post-coital relationship, when he wanted to, well, carry on being Charlie Sheen. The judge, focusing on the superficial issue, got the situation completely wrong."(snip)
xdamage
08-05-2009, 05:22 AM
I do not judge others on the issue of prostitution or marital fidelity. However, I believe that the prostitution is the worst form of exploitation of women which exists in USA.
And yet here you have women telling you it's not, which means you believe they are all fools or ... there is some part of their Point of View on the matter you really don't see.
...I used to have a very different view on strippers when I joined this forum than today because of all the new things I learned since then.
It's stripper web, not really the place to go for strong representation of the point of view of prostitutes but imagine... if you were on such a forum, you might also learn that many (most even?) are doing it by choice the same as the strippers on this forum are doing it by choice.
Are you looking for pure black and pure white? If so, that does not exist in this world. You have to be willing to explore the gray. Unless you do that, you will miss the essence of this universe.
OH I agree, and so couldn't there be a big gray area where on end there are some prostitutes who are forced into it? On the other end some who love sex so much that they want to be porn stars and prostitutes? Somewhere in the middle some who choose it with about the same joy someone else chooses to go work in construction? spend all day stressing over finances? etc? It's work to them, pays pretty well as compared with other options... the sex part not the same that it is for you? You know, a non black and white view?
Hopper
08-05-2009, 05:31 AM
...
As several have pointed out, it's not free, it's just the arranged trade they make... he provides something (whatever it is, emotional support? security? funds? something) and she provides somethings as well (including exclusive sex with him). He thinks of at as "free" because it strokes his ego to believe so but there is actually a barter occurring and one of the assets being bartered is the sex (and sexual exclusivity in his case).
The deranged feminist idea that marriage is institutionalised prostitution - the husband works to earn money to pay his wife for sex. Anyone consider that the woman enjoys sex too, and also works? Both partners contribute work, and both enjoy sex, so neither is paying the other for sex. This notion is degrading to women, since it characterises wives as whores and implies that they don't contribute work as well as the husband.
But at other times feminists complain that housework is unpaid labour. (Like the husbands income doesn't pay for his wife's living needs as well as his own.)
Hopper
08-05-2009, 05:37 AM
men paying women for sex isnt demeaning to women. men expecting women to give it up for free because pussy is gods gift to men, is incredibly demeaning, degrading, and humiliating. Why do you keep ignoring my posts? You already posted that your real reason for hating prostitution is because you think pussy should be free.
Men paying for sex is demeaning for men. Cyril obviously didn't mean that any woman he likes should have sex for him whenever he asks. He means that it should be given freely out of affection, not treated as a commodity.
xdamage
08-05-2009, 06:02 AM
The deranged feminist idea that marriage is institutionalised prostitution - the husband works to earn money to pay his wife for sex. Anyone consider that the woman enjoys sex too? Both partners contribute work, and both enjoy sex. So neither is paying the other for sex. This notion is degrading to women, since it characterises wives as whores and implies that they don't contribute work as well as the husband. But feminists at other times complaing that housework is unpaid labour. (Like the husbands income doesn't pay for his wife's living needs as well as his own.)
Well hopefully the need for chauvinism and feminism ultimately give way to humanism in the long run, but we will see. I think you'll find feminists have their own radically different views about this including the other extremes (e.g., Andrea Dworkin who is famous for many reasons including her anti pornography beliefs and like Cyril was quite sure it was exploiting women, and would probably be shocked to learn about the number of today's feminists who want to work in the sex business in various forms).
Your point about both members enjoying sex is reasonable, and in that case it becomes a symbiotic trade, but even then we have to look beyond the obvious. We're not primates who apparently randomly fuck each other (though they really don't it could appear to be so). Chances are your wife and you not only enjoy sex, but have made some arrangement to only have it with each other, or at least more often with each other vs others. Or something else... will be there in the background which is intertwined with the trade.
It doesn't characterize wife as whores and here is why -
Men statistically have certain assets. Say strength and aggressiveness could be an asset in tribal societies where our genes formed. They have other strengths as well. Women likewise have certain statistical strengths including that they are the child bearing half of the species. One of the areas where they hold the upper hand is in the area of sex. We men want random sex with them more then they want random sex with us, because of that key difference in the species, the child bearing vs not, and so from that a messy organic dance is woven in which men and women end up with different agendas. I am simplifying but you get the idea.
I think it just burns a lot of men's asses to accept that most often women hold the better hand when it comes to sex. So much of the rest of this then is just trying to avoid admitting a simple thing. For example, that when it comes to sex in Cyril's relationship (sorry Cyril but you are involved), if his wife wanted too, her ability to find new mates would out number Cyril's ability to do so 1000:1 (random number to make a point). That is in fact threatening to men. So much intellectual BS thrown at avoiding that simple fact that we are often holding the short stick in this regard.
Of course women have held the short stick in a hundreds of other matters all through life including jobs, personal status, and more. We guys I think are just reeling at the social changes that are making it clearer that when all things are made equal, when women are free to do as they will, that they hold some of their own Aces, including often the sexual Ace.
Now sometimes you'll meet one with low self esteem, or sometimes the guy really is far better looking and the tables are turn, but statistically it is often the other way around and guys really do seem to just freak over the notion that they are in the weaker position.
Back to the key point though... it doesn't make her a whore anymore then it makes us whores for selling use of our brains or bodies or trading them. Just that sex is really deeply intertwined with so much that we do and in most cultures and through out history incredibly expensive. Cheap/safe BC has changed that part of the equation though but it takes a LONG time for social beliefs and human nature to change to match.
Hopper
08-06-2009, 01:00 AM
Well hopefully the need for chauvinism and feminism ultimately give way to humanism in the long run, but we will see. I think you'll find feminists have their own radically different views about this including the other extremes (e.g., Andrea Dworkin who is famous for many reasons including her anti pornography beliefs and like Cyril was quite sure it was exploiting women, and would probably be shocked to learn about the number of today's feminists who want to work in the sex business in various forms).
Feminism was started by men.
Your point about both members enjoying sex is reasonable, and in that case it becomes a symbiotic trade, but even then we have to look beyond the obvious. We're not primates who apparently randomly fuck each other (though they really don't it could appear to be so). Chances are your wife and you not only enjoy sex, but have made some arrangement to only have it with each other, or at least more often with each other vs others. Or something else... will be there in the background which is intertwined with the trade.
It doesn't characterize wife as whores and here is why -
Men statistically have certain assets. Say strength and aggressiveness could be an asset in tribal societies where our genes formed. They have other strengths as well. Women likewise have certain statistical strengths including that they are the child bearing half of the species. One of the areas where they hold the upper hand is in the area of sex. We men want random sex with them more then they want random sex with us, because of that key difference in the species, the child bearing vs not, and so from that a messy organic dance is woven in which men and women end up with different agendas. I am simplifying but you get the idea.
I think it just burns a lot of men's asses to accept that most often women hold the better hand when it comes to sex. So much of the rest of this then is just trying to avoid admitting a simple thing. For example, that when it comes to sex in Cyril's relationship (sorry Cyril but you are involved), if his wife wanted too, her ability to find new mates would out number Cyril's ability to do so 1000:1 (random number to make a point). That is in fact threatening to men. So much intellectual BS thrown at avoiding that simple fact that we are often holding the short stick in this regard.
Outside marriage, where men are pursuing new sex partners, they hold the short stick. Inside marriage, sex is about love and reproduction, both of which women generally want as much as men do. Women don't have the physical desire as much as men do, but they enjoy the emotional side of it, which is inseperable from the physical.
Of course women have held the short stick in a hundreds of other matters all through life including jobs, personal status, and more. We guys I think are just reeling at the social changes that are making it clearer that when all things are made equal, when women are free to do as they will, that they hold some of their own Aces, including often the sexual Ace.
I don't believe that most wives want paid work. Some husbands don't want to work. Office work or labouring is no more enjoyable or rewarding than maintaining one's own house and rearing one's own children. It gives women financial independence, but (a) what husband witholds money from his wife and (b) today wives can divorce and take everything so that route is open to them if the money is not volunteered.
(If a woman wants a career, she should be free to pursue one. But not just because feminists say she needs it in order to be "liberated". If she pursues a career without wanting to, she's not liberated, she's a slave to her job.)
I think feminism has moderated the woman's Ace, since feminists are hostile to marriage and the nuclear family and favour casual arrangements, which means more sex for men. Feminists are encourageing women to act sexually more like men, and more like men would like them to behave.
Now sometimes you'll meet one with low self esteem, or sometimes the guy really is far better looking and the tables are turn, but statistically it is often the other way around and guys really do seem to just freak over the notion that they are in the weaker position.
Back to the key point though... it doesn't make her a whore anymore then it makes us whores for selling use of our brains or bodies or trading them. Just that sex is really deeply intertwined with so much that we do and in most cultures and through out history incredibly expensive. Cheap/safe BC has changed that part of the equation though but it takes a LONG time for social beliefs and human nature to change to match.
In marriage, sex is for reproduction and love. Both partners want both of those. It's not sex for money or slave labour for sex.
xdamage
08-06-2009, 05:03 AM
Feminism was started by men.
Huh? I don't even know where to begin on this one.
... Women don't have the physical desire as much as men do, but they enjoy the emotional side of it, which is inseperable from the physical.
Don't know about that. I've not yet seen any studies done which measure pleasure in an quantifyable way. Don't confuse the fact that sex carries with it greater risks for women then men with not enjoying it.
... Feminists are encourageing women to act sexually more like men, and more like men would like them to behave.
I suggest Robin Baker's Sperm Wars for some eye opening looks at human sexuality. A key premise of his book starts with that 90+% of sperm serve no purpose but to block other sperm; he talks about now proven facts about how many days sperm can remain active to block other sperm; how male ejaculate is unconsciously very well measured in terms of sperm quantity and under what conditions males ejaculate more seemingly for no reason but to cope with infidelity; and much more that has some eye opening implications that females are extremely sexually active, just moderated by the higher risks.... What higher risks???
The world has changed. Birth Control and DNA testing are essentially making the risks of sex obsolete (assuming people use BC) and with that, so much of the differences between the two sexes is changing too. If you had a uterus you'd understand that having sex for fun in pre-BC society, pre-DNA testing society puts you at a risk that is immeasurably greater then that of a male (who could dump his seed, never risks carrying the child, often cannot even be proven it is his, leaving you with the 16+ year job of raising a child that you can't deny is your own).
Don't blaim that change on feminism. Blaim that change on science (but it is for the best).
In marriage, sex is for reproduction and love. Both partners want both of those. It's not sex for money or slave labour for sex.
You're like Cyril and need to feel this way and that is fine. If helps you feel this way then feel this way. But add to it... in marriage the money you contribute via the work you do, the protection you provide, is done for love and the reproductive benefits of providing a safe haven for children. If you wish to see it that way then see your own contributions (all of them) that way as well. And having seen it that way, it's like a Neker Cube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_Cube) it doesn't matter if you wish to see it all for love or all just as a human barter. Just be consistent and don't kid yourself that the female contribution of sex to your exhange is not part of that barter (or love, whichever you prefer) or that it is not an asset that is a point of power for her. The degrees to which men will go to get sex makes it a very valuable asset indeed.
Otoki
08-06-2009, 07:23 AM
men paying women for sex isnt demeaning to women. men expecting women to give it up for free because pussy is gods gift to men, is incredibly demeaning, degrading, and humiliating. Why do you keep ignoring my posts? You already posted that your real reason for hating prostitution is because you think pussy should be free.
This post is awesome. Seriously.
Otoki
08-06-2009, 07:25 AM
Men paying for sex is demeaning for men. Cyril obviously didn't mean that any woman he likes should have sex for him whenever he asks. He means that it should be given freely out of affection, not treated as a commodity.
I don't think it's demeaning for men, either. There are plenty of reasons men go to female strippers, and there are just as many (if not more) varied reasons men pay prostitutes. They're both business transactions, and in some countries, they're both considered perfectly legitimate;)
As for your posts on feminism, I find you rather strangely misinformed. I'm confused about many of your points, which don't seem to be rooted in history or feminist theory, but in something else entirely.
Oh, and as for your "inside marriage, sex is for love and reproduction" line:
Not every couple wants to reproduce, and many couples CAN'T do so, be they barren, past reproductive age, or a gay couple (who isn't having sex in order to reproduce with each other, although of course they could still reproduce with a surrogate, but I digress...) I just find your generalizations rather strange.
Otoki
08-06-2009, 07:51 AM
Actually, the more I read of hopper's post, the more irritated I am, so I'm going to respond instead:
Feminism was started by men.
History fail!
Seems like you need to read up on Feminism (and protofeminism, which may be what you're referring to).
Outside marriage, where men are pursuing new sex partners, they hold the short stick. Inside marriage, sex is about love and reproduction, both of which women generally want as much as men do. Women don't have the physical desire as much as men do, but they enjoy the emotional side of it, which is inseperable from the physical.
I think this is an overly simplistic way to look at marriage, reproduction, and sexuality. I find the generalizations about male and female sex drive boringly stereotypical, and your summary of male and female sexual mentality to be removed from reality.
I don't believe that most wives want paid work.
Awesome. I totally wouldn't have an issue with this if you said the same of husbands, but instead you say:
Some husbands don't want to work.
Nice. I'm sure you have some gender-specific explanation to back up your claim.
Office work or labouring is no more enjoyable or rewarding than maintaining one's own house and rearing one's own children. It gives women financial independence, but (a) what husband witholds money from his wife and (b) today wives can divorce and take everything so that route is open to them if the money is not volunteered.
Where to start. Well, some people enjoy their jobs, and some people enjoy doing housework. Many people enjoy neither, and see them as necessary operations for survival.
By "it gives women financial independence" I don't know if you're referring to a career, or to being a stay at home.
(a) you seem to live in a ridiculously ideal world here, where partners never do anything to control the other. Abusive relationships also seem not to exist.
(b) Wow, and we get the complete opposite, where women are money grubbing whores who will divorce their husband if they don't get enough money. Because that's a reasonable complaint on which to base a divorce.
So far, no men are controlling with money, but if they are women can divorce them and take them for all they're worth! Sweet.
(If a woman wants a career, she should be free to pursue one. But not just because feminists say she needs it in order to be "liberated". If she pursues a career without wanting to, she's not liberated, she's a slave to her job.)
So what are men who pursue careers without wanting to? You seem to think that only women have the option to be stay at home spouses. I find this disturbing, since third-wave feminism is all about choice. As it stands, if ANY individual works despite not wanting to, they are a slave to their job in some way. However, we need money to survive, so often times working is not an option. If, however, within a partnership, the members decide that one should stay at home, I don't think that should be dependent on gender.
I think feminism has moderated the woman's Ace, since feminists are hostile to marriage and the nuclear family and favour casual arrangements, which means more sex for men. Feminists are encourageing women to act sexually more like men, and more like men would like them to behave.
Wow, it sounds like you're taking 2nd wave militant feminism (marriage is an oppressive institution which traps women) and some weird interpretation of third wave feminism (free casual sex? Ooookay....) It's sad that you find it inconceivable that women are changing the way they approach sex because they're behaving more and more the way they, WOMEN, would like to behave. It's irritating that you think women's decisions must somehow hinge on what men want ("more like men would like them to behave"), and not on some personal decision.
There are women who choose not to have casual sex, or those who wait until marriage. There are also women who have one night stands, or have sex outside of a defined relationship. I dont really see what the problem is. I think the label "slut" is still used to oppress women (make them ashamed of their sexual activity), and is very rarely used towards men. I think ignoring the word "slut", or reclaiming it, takes away oppressive, judgmental stigma and allows the woman to do what makes her (sexually) happy.
Sure there are still problems with the way some men and women approach sex, but overall I'd say the emphasis on safe sex within one's limits is a great step in the right direction.
In marriage, sex is for reproduction and love. Both partners want both of those. It's not sex for money or slave labour for sex.
Depends what kind of marriage you're talking about. In an ideal marriage, sex is for love, period. Reproduction might be a byproduct of sex if the partners so wish, but I think love should be the main focus of sex. However, there are many people who wouldn't be married to each other if their partner was broke, or they didn't have a steady job, or they were extremely ill, or had some physical disability, or weren't willing to single-handedly shoulder all the housework, or weren't willing to split the housework, etc etc etc.
Marriage is very rarely ideal, it's a partnership, and different people want different things out of said partnership, so making vast generalizations about what marriage "is" or "isn't" in our very non-ideal world strikes me as silly and pointless.
xdamage
08-06-2009, 08:25 AM
...(a) you seem to live in a ridiculously ideal world here, where partners never do anything to control the other. Abusive relationships also seem not to exist....
Unfortunately again I can only blame Hopper so much. He is raised in the same society as all of us and the messages are strong and clear.
There is both struggling and agreements between people of the same sex and different sex, but I tend to look at people as individuals, each in it for their self, and ask what are they trading for what? what pov is in their own best interest? what are they getting out of it? I am not a great believer in altruism though on rare occasions I think I see it, but anyway...
The message is if a guy goes to work, makes money, he has that asset which is quite a point of power both to start new relationships and control existing ones. The money he sees has "his", but shares some of what is "his" with his wife under various conditions (he requires certain behaviors, maybe even submissiveness, or worse; of course he requires sex and that she care for his kids if they have them; care for the house; etc.) From his point of view it is a greater ego stroke for him to believe she needs him and gives him sex out of "love" (i.e., for free) while his money is his own asset which he shares with her if she earns it by way of behavior he finds pleasing.
I guess this is because when you get down to it, money is a less common asset then sex. That is to say, everyone can have sex, but not everyone has money. In addition you need money to survive, but you can live an entire life without sex. He who has the money then may always have a point of control, but also a tendency to be corrupt and abusive (such is humans).
However it only takes a little bit of stepping in another's shoes to reverse the roles and realize that being controlled by another's money (which one might need to survive as well as enjoy some things) sucks... and that having control of one's own destiny is of course a completely normal thing. Then a person says okay, what are my assets? what could I do to make money? Or what can I do to improve my situation with my spouse on whom I am dependent for money? And from there it is only a minor step to see that sex is a key asset.
The funny thing is if a guy really wants sex for love (whatever that really means) one chance he has is to stop holding the money he earns over his spouses head as his. Assuming both are responsible with the income, treating it as another common resource, not a point of power, could lead to some of that sex also given not to control, but to share just for the sake of mutual pleasure.
Otoki
08-06-2009, 11:09 AM
Unfortunately again I can only blame Hopper so much. He is raised in the same society as all of us and the messages are strong and clear.
I was pointing out that for his claim in (a) to be true, he would have to live in said fantasy world, not that he actually lives in one.
Almost Jaded
08-06-2009, 11:19 AM
This is so intensely fascinating that I want to continue reading it without polluting it with my POV, lol. Maybe later. This is the best discussion I've read online anywhere in many moons.
Carry on... :)
Otoki
08-06-2009, 07:39 PM
Unfortunately again I can only blame Hopper so much. He is raised in the same society as all of us and the messages are strong and clear.
There is both struggling and agreements between people of the same sex and different sex, but I tend to look at people as individuals, each in it for their self, and ask what are they trading for what? what pov is in their own best interest? what are they getting out of it? I am not a great believer in altruism though on rare occasions I think I see it, but anyway...
The message is if a guy goes to work, makes money, he has that asset which is quite a point of power both to start new relationships and control existing ones. The money he sees has "his", but shares some of what is "his" with his wife under various conditions (he requires certain behaviors, maybe even submissiveness, or worse; of course he requires sex and that she care for his kids if they have them; care for the house; etc.) From his point of view it is a greater ego stroke for him to believe she needs him and gives him sex out of "love" (i.e., for free) while his money is his own asset which he shares with her if she earns it by way of behavior he finds pleasing.
I guess this is because when you get down to it, money is a less common asset then sex. That is to say, everyone can have sex, but not everyone has money. In addition you need money to survive, but you can live an entire life without sex. He who has the money then may always have a point of control, but also a tendency to be corrupt and abusive (such is humans).
However it only takes a little bit of stepping in another's shoes to reverse the roles and realize that being controlled by another's money (which one might need to survive as well as enjoy some things) sucks... and that having control of one's own destiny is of course a completely normal thing. Then a person says okay, what are my assets? what could I do to make money? Or what can I do to improve my situation with my spouse on whom I am dependent for money? And from there it is only a minor step to see that sex is a key asset.
The funny thing is if a guy really wants sex for love (whatever that really means) one chance he has is to stop holding the money he earns over his spouses head as his. Assuming both are responsible with the income, treating it as another common resource, not a point of power, could lead to some of that sex also given not to control, but to share just for the sake of mutual pleasure.
Did you read the rest of my post? I'd be interested in what people thought. I wouldn't want to kill the thread completely.
xdamage
08-06-2009, 07:49 PM
Did you read the rest of my post? I'd be interested in what people thought. I wouldn't want to kill the thread completely.
Yes, it was long but rather then add to all of your points, yes the short version is yes agreed with your comments. Hopper has a fairly common POV, but hopefully he takes time to consider the female side as well. It's really not a big threat (though I guess it can seem that way).
Hopper
08-07-2009, 01:11 AM
...
Don't know about that. I've not yet seen any studies done which measure pleasure in an quantifyable way. Don't confuse the fact that sex carries with it greater risks for women then men with not enjoying it.
Then later you say women have the ace in the sexual desire department in marriage.
... females are extremely sexually active, just moderated by the higher risks.... What higher risks???
The world has changed. Birth Control and DNA testing are essentially making the risks of sex obsolete (assuming people use BC) and with that, so much of the differences between the two sexes is changing too. If you had a uterus you'd understand that having sex for fun in pre-BC society, pre-DNA testing society puts you at a risk that is immeasurably greater then that of a male (who could dump his seed, never risks carrying the child, often cannot even be proven it is his, leaving you with the 16+ year job of raising a child that you can't deny is your own).
Don't blaim that change on feminism. Blaim that change on science (but it is for the best).
It was feminists who promoted birth control for the widespread use it has now. actually it was first promoted by Margaret Sanger of the Birth Contorl League, now Planned Parenthood, but second-wave feminists have the same agenda, only with modified ideology.
... Just be consistent and don't kid yourself that the female contribution of sex to your exhange is not part of that barter (or love, whichever you prefer) or that it is not an asset that is a point of power for her. The degrees to which men will go to get sex makes it a very valuable asset indeed.
Are you being consistent? Above you said that sexual desire is "unquantifiable" in either sex, now you say women are definitely lower and therefore have the ace in the hole.
Hopper
08-07-2009, 01:18 AM
I don't think it's demeaning for men, either. There are plenty of reasons men go to female strippers, and there are just as many (if not more) varied reasons men pay prostitutes. They're both business transactions, and in some countries, they're both considered perfectly legitimate;)
I was referring to the fact that no man likes to believe he ever has to "pay for it".
As for your posts on feminism, I find you rather strangely misinformed. I'm confused about many of your points, which don't seem to be rooted in history or feminist theory, but in something else entirely.
That's because I disagree with feminism.
Oh, and as for your "inside marriage, sex is for love and reproduction" line:
Not every couple wants to reproduce, and many couples CAN'T do so, be they barren, past reproductive age, or a gay couple (who isn't having sex in order to reproduce with each other, although of course they could still reproduce with a surrogate, but I digress...) I just find your generalizations rather strange.
I find your use of homosexual relationships to make a point about heterosexual relationships and marriage strange. Most married couples reproduce. Even though some don't, the point of marriage is to provide upbringing for children.
Sugarmama
08-07-2009, 02:02 AM
My ego will not let me enjoy the sex if I know she is sleeping with me for my money. :)
I was going to wait until I got to the end of this thread to post but I don't mean no harm but honey let me tell u something there are times when a women is sleeping with you because you have provided her with something may not be cold hard cash it could be for mowing the lawn, buying a new dress, cleaning the house up for her whatever the case maybe.
You are highly disillusioned if you think every time your lady gets with u its because of your good dick.
I rather do what I am doing than to go somewhere and have tell my life story to get what I need.
Men always want to control women it should be up to us and only us what we do with our bodies.
Hopper
08-07-2009, 02:09 AM
...
History fail!
Seems like you need to read up on Feminism (and protofeminism, which may be what you're referring to).
Betty Frieden popularised feminism. But she got it from left-wing writers were popularising it in left-wing circles. These writers got it from the Communist Party of the USA, who made it party dogam in the late 1940s. The CP got this policy out of Engels' "On the Origins of the Family, Private Propety and the State" Engels took the ideas in that from ideas which had been with the socialist movement from the beginning, in the eighteenth century.
Frieden's "Myth of the Feminine Mystique" is indistinguishable in ideas and even language from parts of "Toward Soviet America" (1932), by William Z. Foster, then General Secretary of the CPUSA. Frieden had been a Marxist activist since 1938. She wrote for a Comunist-dominated workers union. Frieden characterised herself as a typical housewife who, one day at the kitchen sink, woke up to being a slave. Really she and her husband owned a house on the Hudson, both worked and hired a maid for the housework.
Don't take my word for all of this - check with Kate Wiegan, respected feminist historian and the socialists praising her at their website: http://www.workers.org/2006/us/lavender-red-52/ Or Daniel Horowitz, professor at Smith College, where Frieden wrote for a college newspaper in 1938-42. He wrote "Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism" (1999). Funny how feminists never talk about any of this. It's something women should probabaly know.
And as I mentionned previously, Margaret Sanger's Birth Control League, (which changed it's name after WW2 to Planned Parenthood because of their former, open advocacy of eugenics and "racial hygene", which targetted "lower races" and "lower classes") advocated the same ideas about birth control that feminists and environmentalists advocate today, just with different ideological spin. Sanger's movement was aligned with socialism also.
Feminism has a socialist ideology. Socialists oppose the family as the centre of society, because it creates an opposing allegiance of individuals to the state.
Nineteenth-century "protofeminism" was not a single movement. Feminism was coined, after a few decades, as just a collective term for the diverse women's movements, some of which were also socialist, for various rights, social reforms and crusades. Second-wave feminism was a politically more specific, regimented movement.
I think this is an overly simplistic way to look at marriage, reproduction, and sexuality. I find the generalizations about male and female sex drive boringly stereotypical, and your summary of male and female sexual mentality to be removed from reality.
Yet you don't say why.
Awesome. I totally wouldn't have an issue with this if you said the same of husbands, but instead you say:
Nice. I'm sure you have some gender-specific explanation to back up your claim.
I was defending a "gender-specific" arrangement - marriages in which the man earns the income and the woman tends the house and kids. I am arguing that the woman's role is no less desirable than the man's role. Which is more of a drudge - working eight or more hours a day at an office or factory, or cooking, cleaning and furnishing your own home and caring for children? All of these are things people do as jobs anyway.
Where to start. Well, some people enjoy their jobs, and some people enjoy doing housework. Many people enjoy neither, and see them as necessary operations for survival.
By "it gives women financial independence" I don't know if you're referring to a career, or to being a stay at home.
(a) you seem to live in a ridiculously ideal world here, where partners never do anything to control the other. Abusive relationships also seem not to exist.
(b) Wow, and we get the complete opposite, where women are money grubbing whores who will divorce their husband if they don't get enough money. Because that's a reasonable complaint on which to base a divorce.
So far, no men are controlling with money, but if they are women can divorce them and take them for all they're worth! Sweet.
I don't say women enjoy housework, but maintaining a home is more than housework. I lived with a radical feminist once. She was obsessive about cleaning and housework and liked to decorate and keep the house. In my experience, it is something most women naturally like and most men ignore and hate. (But if in their car's case, look out.)
Didn't say all marriages are ideal either, but the problems are irrelevant to the opint we are discussing. There are real-world problems no matter what position you take.
I mentionned financial independence inregard to the feminist idea that a woman needs to do paid work to have it.
I didn't say that women are money-grubbing (or whores), I said that if a husband were controlling and made the marriage difficult for the woman, the woman was not trapped - she could sue for it, perhaps without a divorce.
So what are men who pursue careers without wanting to? You seem to think that only women have the option to be stay at home spouses. I find this disturbing, since third-wave feminism is all about choice. As it stands, if ANY individual works despite not wanting to, they are a slave to their job in some way. However, we need money to survive, so often times working is not an option. If, however, within a partnership, the members decide that one should stay at home, I don't think that should be dependent on gender.
By career I mean a professional vocation. Most men don't want to pursue careers either and don't have the specific talents.
Big of feminists to give women a choice now. But why would a woman choose to work in an office or factory over her home? We are talking about married women with children. Someone has to be home to bring up the kids, and it is burdensome for both partners to work AND keep the house, cook etc. And like you say - housework is now an acceptable PC option. Problem?
Wow, it sounds like you're taking 2nd wave militant feminism (marriage is an oppressive institution which traps women) and some weird interpretation of third wave feminism (free casual sex? Ooookay....) It's sad that you find it inconceivable that women are changing the way they approach sex because they're behaving more and more the way they, WOMEN, would like to behave. It's irritating that you think women's decisions must somehow hinge on what men want ("more like men would like them to behave"), and not on some personal decision.
The way women want to behave has been influenced by a feminism-saturated mass-media. Before, women wanted to marry and have children. The natural male tendency (free of social restraints) is to copulate with as many girls as they can with no strings - casual sex. What's in it for the women, besides single-parenthood or permantly staying on the pill?
There are women who choose not to have casual sex, or those who wait until marriage. There are also women who have one night stands, or have sex outside of a defined relationship. I dont really see what the problem is. I think the label "slut" is still used to oppress women (make them ashamed of their sexual activity), and is very rarely used towards men. I think ignoring the word "slut", or reclaiming it, takes away oppressive, judgmental stigma and allows the woman to do what makes her (sexually) happy.
Sure there are still problems with the way some men and women approach sex, but overall I'd say the emphasis on safe sex within one's limits is a great step in the right direction.
Most women don't want to be single (in casual relations) all their life. Look at the thirty- and forty-somethings huddled around tables at night-clubs for mutual support, scoping guys. The single life is okay for women up to about age twenty.
Depends what kind of marriage you're talking about. In an ideal marriage, sex is for love, period. Reproduction might be a byproduct of sex if the partners so wish, but I think love should be the main focus of sex. However, there are many people who wouldn't be married to each other if their partner was broke, or they didn't have a steady job, or they were extremely ill, or had some physical disability, or weren't willing to single-handedly shoulder all the housework, or weren't willing to split the housework, etc etc etc.
Marriage is very rarely ideal, it's a partnership, and different people want different things out of said partnership, so making vast generalizations about what marriage "is" or "isn't" in our very non-ideal world strikes me as silly and pointless.
Marriage without children is pointless. Most couples naturally do want them.
Hopper
08-07-2009, 02:27 AM
...
...
The message is if a guy goes to work, makes money, he has that asset which is quite a point of power both to start new relationships and control existing ones. The money he sees has "his", but shares some of what is "his" with his wife under various conditions (he requires certain behaviors, maybe even submissiveness, or worse; of course he requires sex and that she care for his kids if they have them; care for the house; etc.) From his point of view it is a greater ego stroke for him to believe she needs him and gives him sex out of "love" (i.e., for free) while his money is his own asset which he shares with her if she earns it by way of behavior he finds pleasing.
I guess this is because when you get down to it, money is a less common asset then sex. That is to say, everyone can have sex, but not everyone has money. In addition you need money to survive, but you can live an entire life without sex. He who has the money then may always have a point of control, but also a tendency to be corrupt and abusive (such is humans).
However it only takes a little bit of stepping in another's shoes to reverse the roles and realize that being controlled by another's money (which one might need to survive as well as enjoy some things) sucks... and that having control of one's own destiny is of course a completely normal thing. Then a person says okay, what are my assets? what could I do to make money? Or what can I do to improve my situation with my spouse on whom I am dependent for money? And from there it is only a minor step to see that sex is a key asset.
The funny thing is if a guy really wants sex for love (whatever that really means) one chance he has is to stop holding the money he earns over his spouses head as his. Assuming both are responsible with the income, treating it as another common resource, not a point of power, could lead to some of that sex also given not to control, but to share just for the sake of mutual pleasure.
It's true that the guy with money attracts the girl with looks etc and vice versa, but once they are married it's no longer a "trade". The whole reason women marry men who have money is that it makes him a good provider for her and her children. So his ability is what enables him to be a good provider for his family. The attachment of the man to his wife is based on looks, yes, but it becomes more than just sexual attraction further on. Men also want to have children - to continue their line.
I really don't know why I have to explain any of this. You are looking at the whole thing in terms of self-interest, control and power.
Hopper
08-07-2009, 02:29 AM
This is so intensely fascinating that I want to continue reading it without polluting it with my POV, lol. Maybe later. This is the best discussion I've read online anywhere in many moons.
Carry on... :)
My pain is your entertainment.
Hopper
08-07-2009, 02:35 AM
I was going to wait until I got to the end of this thread to post but I don't mean no harm but honey let me tell u something there are times when a women is sleeping with you because you have provided her with something may not be cold hard cash it could be for mowing the lawn, buying a new dress, cleaning the house up for her whatever the case maybe.
You are highly disillusioned if you think every time your lady gets with u its because of your good dick.
I rather do what I am doing than to go somewhere and have tell my life story to get what I need.
Men always want to control women it should be up to us and only us what we do with our bodies.
Where are you headed, then?
Again the presumption that if it's all about material self-interest - money, labour, belongins, or dick.
And selfishness - only doing what I want, never anything for someone else or some higer aim. Of course men want to control women (they are married to) and wives want to control their husbands too. That is natural and proper.
xdamage
08-07-2009, 04:42 AM
Then later you say women have the ace in the sexual desire department in marriage.
It was feminists who promoted birth control for the widespread use it has now. actually it was first promoted by Margaret Sanger of the Birth Contorl League, now Planned Parenthood, but second-wave feminists have the same agenda, only with modified ideology.
Are you being consistent? Above you said that sexual desire is "unquantifiable" in either sex, now you say women are definitely lower and therefore have the ace in the hole.
No you're confusing desire with what I think of as the Ace. I really recommend reading the book I recommended, Sperm Wars. It may be somewhat clearer that while women desire sex, their risks are entirely different and therefore they are much more selective about who they have sex with. This is not the same as they don't want it. Just that historically they have had to be far more careful (a bit more below)...
As for BC, I really don't know who promoted what, just that several BC methods including the pill appeared on the scene around the same time that feminism flourished. There is a good chance though the changes are heavily intertwined.
The thing is cheap/safe BC dramatically changes the risks for women when it comes to having casual sex, and with it, society can start to lift its various forms of social birth control. What is social birth control?
By social birth control you have to understand that our brains are wired by our genes, and we were not wired in the society that people today are born into the USA, and likewise social beliefs were formed pre BC. You didn't hop into your car, drive down to the pharmacy to pick up pills, or drive down to 7-11 to pick up condoms and designer water. If you are a woman in pre BC society sex is risky. If you end up pregnant there may be no way to prove who the father is while you can't deny it is yours. If that happens and you have no committed mate, chances are you or your folks will raise the child alone (happens constantly today). Males on the other hand can be careless because their risks are far lower. Pre DNA testing it was even very hard to prove you were the father.
If you are in a relationship and have unprotected casual sex, as a woman you risk carrying another man's child, an you have absolutely no way to hide it or hope that your partner won't find out, short of lying and pretending it is your mates. And women do cheat, read the book, as do men.
Do you have teen age kids? Because if you do you know they almost assuredly do NOT listen to reason when it comes to being safe. Their brains are wired to have unprotected sex as surely as the animals, hundreds of millions of years of evolution have made it so. Both men and women are so wired. But how do you impress on them the dangers when they won't listen? And who do you appeal to? The boys? Their risks are low? or the girls? Their risks are high.
I'm simplifying but the end result is that without modern BC, social BC is whatever sets of beliefs society uses (usually fear, including religious fear) to discourage them from having casual sex. People aren't necessarily aware this is why they so engage, it's instinctive, but people (like evolution) basically survive if they do what works. And social birth control works better then intellectual appeal, even if it means believing in nonesense.
p.s. many of your attitudes about sex and female roles in marriage are intertwined with social birth control but it would take yet more paragraphs to explain and not now. We do live in a patriarchal society and so because of that the views we are raised with our skewed in our favor as males but it is subtle.
xdamage
08-07-2009, 05:25 AM
..but once they are married it's no longer a "trade". ..
The motivators that were in play pre-marriage really don't stop after marriage. Even if socially you think it should be so, that a magic (or legal) line of some sort has been crossed, people are fundamentally driven by the same emotions after marriage as they were before. And of course, not all marriages last, often because the people stop trying or things change in terms of their behavior towards each other after the wedding day.
Almost Jaded
08-07-2009, 12:00 PM
My pain is your entertainment.
No, the thread is entertainment - and education. Your pain... Well, X, Otoki, myself, and many others are all very familiar with it, in many threads. On that note...
I find it particularly interesting that in this discussion, your attitude and presentation has messed with the 'normal' polarization of views displayed by members here. You clearly know what you're talking about and have real substance to back your POV - and it's refreshing to see someone so equipped spar a little with some of the others here. Odd that some - including him, at least early on - see you as aligning with Cyril, arguably the least rational or credible poster in these threads.
FWIW, I'm enjoying this because I see some distinct differences between every single person posting so far, and the majority of them have some substance to them. I see parallel lines of thought between the parties debating that I'm not sure they themselves recognize. And I'm learning, which is fun - this thread has caused me to reevaluate my personal POV more than anything I've read on SW to date. I really enjoy having my views modified; it happens rarely and always feels like progress.
I also hesitate to jump in and throw around counterpoints or new information for several reasons. One - some here question my claims that I have knowledge on many topics, or access to people or info that many do not. Two - in this debate in particular, my delving into things and mentioning certain books and other media would openly indicate my identity and that of people close to me; some of whom would not be okay with that, lol.
Hopper
08-07-2009, 07:55 PM
No, the thread is entertainment - and education. Your pain... Well, X, Otoki, myself, and many others are all very familiar with it, in many threads. On that note...
I do get into trouble. Sounds as if you have all been talking about me.
I find it particularly interesting that in this discussion, your attitude and presentation has messed with the 'normal' polarization of views displayed by members here. You clearly know what you're talking about and have real substance to back your POV - and it's refreshing to see someone so equipped spar a little with some of the others here. Odd that some - including him, at least early on - see you as aligning with Cyril, arguably the least rational or credible poster in these threads.
Both sides of any "polarisation" are wrong when they both are missing important information or concepts. They then become virtually the same as one another in the important respects.
I don't agree with Cyril about everything. He has just been trolled by far less rational people, as have I. In this thread, he wants prostitution abolished. I don't, but only because government regulation ends up making things it regulates more out of control than it could get without regulation. Like the war on drugs, organised crime and big business. But I do think prostition is a degrading and undesirable job and not a service that appeals to me as a man either.
I also believe that people should be free to choose for themselves, and it is a choice in most if not all cases, one which most women would not choose, precisely because it is such degrading and undesirable work. If a woman does it to support an expensive drug habit, then she has bigger problems than prostitution, and removing one would remove the need for the other.
FWIW, I'm enjoying this because I see some distinct differences between every single person posting so far, and the majority of them have some substance to them. I see parallel lines of thought between the parties debating that I'm not sure they themselves recognize. And I'm learning, which is fun - this thread has caused me to reevaluate my personal POV more than anything I've read on SW to date. I really enjoy having my views modified; it happens rarely and always feels like progress.
I also hesitate to jump in and throw around counterpoints or new information for several reasons. One - some here question my claims that I have knowledge on many topics, or access to people or info that many do not. Two - in this debate in particular, my delving into things and mentioning certain books and other media would openly indicate my identity and that of people close to me; some of whom would not be okay with that, lol.
Indicate to who?
Gia2608
08-07-2009, 08:09 PM
Out of control. Babi Bambi In the US, it's legal in parts of Nevada and it is not illegal in RI (which means it is frowned upon but can not be prosecuted under current law). I'm sure you figured that out by now though.
Hopper
08-07-2009, 08:28 PM
No you're confusing desire with what I think of as the Ace. I really recommend reading the book I recommended, Sperm Wars. It may be somewhat clearer that while women desire sex, their risks are entirely different and therefore they are much more selective about who they have sex with. This is not the same as they don't want it. Just that historically they have had to be far more careful (a bit more below)...
Even with condoms?
As for BC, I really don't know who promoted what, just that several BC methods including the pill appeared on the scene around the same time that feminism flourished. There is a good chance though the changes are heavily intertwined.
I don't oppose the use of brith control. Various methods have existed for all of history - it is not a recent invention. I don't care if you can get it at the supermarket. The issue is that feminists encouraged it as a means of contraception beyond what is socially necessary, supposedly to "free" women from childbearing. Also because they want casual sex over marriage, since for political reasons they oppose families. Feminism is nothing to do with liberating women. The things they oppose are not things women need to be liberated from. Feminism is a mass-appeal vehicle for changing our political and economic system.
The thing is cheap/safe BC dramatically changes the risks for women when it comes to having casual sex, and with it, society can start to lift its various forms of social birth control. What is social birth control?
By social birth control you have to understand that our brains are wired by our genes, and we were not wired in the society that people today are born into the USA, and likewise social beliefs were formed pre BC. You didn't hop into your car, drive down to the pharmacy to pick up pills, or drive down to 7-11 to pick up condoms and designer water. If you are a woman in pre BC society sex is risky. If you end up pregnant there may be no way to prove who the father is while you can't deny it is yours. If that happens and you have no committed mate, chances are you or your folks will raise the child alone (happens constantly today). Males on the other hand can be careless because their risks are far lower. Pre DNA testing it was even very hard to prove you were the father.
If you are in a relationship and have unprotected casual sex, as a woman you risk carrying another man's child, an you have absolutely no way to hide it or hope that your partner won't find out, short of lying and pretending it is your mates. And women do cheat, read the book, as do men.
Do you have teen age kids? Because if you do you know they almost assuredly do NOT listen to reason when it comes to being safe. Their brains are wired to have unprotected sex as surely as the animals, hundreds of millions of years of evolution have made it so. Both men and women are so wired. But how do you impress on them the dangers when they won't listen? And who do you appeal to? The boys? Their risks are low? or the girls? Their risks are high.
I'm simplifying but the end result is that without modern BC, social BC is whatever sets of beliefs society uses (usually fear, including religious fear) to discourage them from having casual sex. People aren't necessarily aware this is why they so engage, it's instinctive, but people (like evolution) basically survive if they do what works. And social birth control works better then intellectual appeal, even if it means believing in nonesense.
Birth control is useful for avoiding unwanted pregnacies, but in marriage, pregnancies are wanted. Feminists want to restrict pregnancies in marriage. Why? To reduce population? To free women from childbirth? To free the woman to pursue a career or get other paid work merely for "economic independence"? None of these are real issues. They have all been fabricated by feminists in accordance with an underlying political agenda, which they often do talk about (I'm notmerely speculating about this).
p.s. many of your attitudes about sex and female roles in marriage are intertwined with social birth control but it would take yet more paragraphs to explain and not now. We do live in a patriarchal society and so because of that the views we are raised with our skewed in our favor as males but it is subtle.
What are my attitudes? Why is "patriarchal" society skewed in favour of men? Women have equal esteem and value with men in our society. It only becomes oppression when viewed through the skewed prism of feminist ideology, which exists only for underlying political aims.
lopaw
08-07-2009, 08:32 PM
jeebus.
Some of the outdated views on gender roles in this thread are truly laughable.
Or did we turn back the clock to 1952 and no one told me?
Not to mention the generalized attack on feminism. Yes - I'm sure it will be responsible for the downfall of civilization as we know it. *Yawn*. Get over it.
Lord knows I don't know how you gals do it.
Hopper
08-07-2009, 08:34 PM
The motivators that were in play pre-marriage really don't stop after marriage. Even if socially you think it should be so, that a magic (or legal) line of some sort has been crossed, people are fundamentally driven by the same emotions after marriage as they were before. And of course, not all marriages last, often because the people stop trying or things change in terms of their behavior towards each other after the wedding day.
It's not that marriage is crossing a legal or magic line. Men and women attract one another as mates for the purpose of marrying and raising children. The family is the basic unit of every society in history everywhere on the planet. Before marriage, they are courting. After marriage, they are raising a family. They court for the purpose of assuming roles in this partnership. Sexual and financial dependency hold it together, but they are not the purpose of marrying. There are easier ways to get money and sex.
iambonbon05
08-07-2009, 08:35 PM
Escorts and prostitutes, I'm guessing, feel much more exploited by the fact that the act is illegal than they do by the act itself.
I personally don't think I'd ever escort but let's say I decide to and it's legal. I advertise, find a client, we do the deed, I make money. I work independently, so I keep all that money, except I pay taxes on it because it's legal. Happy ending(s)!
Because it's illegal though, I'd be more likely to run into pimps, or to end up in jail while my clients are pretty darn likely to walk away scot free. Now I have a record and my life is basically ruined.
Which situation is more exploitative?
Gia2608
08-07-2009, 08:40 PM
Thanks.
Hopper
08-07-2009, 08:50 PM
jeebus.
Some of the outdated views on gender roles in this thread are truly laughable.
Or did we turn back the clock to 1952 and no one told me?
Not to mention the generalized attack on feminism. Yes - I'm sure it will be responsible for the downfall of civilization as we know it. *Yawn*. Get over it.
Lord knows I don't know how you straight gals do it.
Feminists turned the clock back centuries. Newer doesn't mean progressive. They gave us nothing good that we didn't have before 1952 or wouldn't have eventuated with normal, sensible improvements in public attitudes. Feminism actually set that process back by unnecessarily polarising society. You are not complaining about outdated gender roles, you apparently want no gender roles at all. Not that lesbians have anything to do with them.
iambonbon05
08-07-2009, 08:54 PM
Wow.
Just curious, what's your definition of feminism?
Almost Jaded
08-07-2009, 08:55 PM
Hopper - you were not the pain to which I referred; merely the pain of trying to ge through to people, not all of whom are receptive.
Lopaw - the clock hasn't been dialed back; not everyone views some of the "progress" of the last few decades as such. The frequent attacks on anyone with a "traditional" or "conservative" viewpoint in this day and age is lamentable; some of them have very valid points.
Back to Hopper - by anyone reading who bothered to check references/authors, etc. Some of the statements you have made lead me to believe you especially would be very quickly familiar with the persons/groups represented in many of them. I also suspect that your points on other topics - some far more volatile than feminism these days - would follow a similar vein. It's one I'm very familiar with, i.e., the underlying politics. I try to participate and lead people to the truth whenever possible without outright stepping on sensitive toes. It get harder all the time. Its especially difficult when you know that the things you want to show them would offend people you respect and want badly to share with, but whom you know wouldn't get past the surface issues. :(
So again - I feel your pain, lol.
Almost Jaded
08-07-2009, 08:56 PM
Yikes - two posts while I was writing that, and I sound repetitive. :embarrassed:
lopaw
08-07-2009, 09:18 PM
Feminists turned the clock back centuries. Newer doesn't mean progressive. They gave us nothing good that we didn't have before 1952 or wouldn't have eventuated with normal, sensible improvements in public attitudes. Feminism actually set that process back by unnecessarily polarising society. You are not complaining about outdated gender roles, you apparently want no gender roles at all. Not that lesbians have anything to do with them.
Yup.
You got it.
Gender roles are crippling.
One great thing about a gay lifestyle is that you aren't typically confined to a role that society says you should have. Each partner lives their lives fluidly jumping back and forth between what society deems as "feminine" & "masculine" roles as they see fit within their relationship. Works beautifully. You straight people oughta try it sometime.
I identify totally as a feminist.
I doubt I (or many others) fit into your nice generic view of what a "feminist" really is.
lopaw
08-07-2009, 09:37 PM
Lopaw - the clock hasn't been dialed back; not everyone views some of the "progress" of the last few decades as such. The frequent attacks on anyone with a "traditional" or "conservative" viewpoint in this day and age is lamentable; some of them have very valid points.
Very valid points?
Depends on which side of the "progress" matrix you are on, doesn't it?
If you're a straight white male, then you might be feeling quite threatened by the "progress" that other social or ethnic classes might be making. All of a sudden you are not top dog anymore - having to share the wealth with others that you may feel are below you or un-equal.
Equality seems unfair - hey you've had it all to yourself for so long, you don't want to have to share now.
If you are anything other than the above...."progress" is usually a GOOD thing. Opportunity to try things that were out of reach before. But the above group will never understand this, since they have always had opportunity and take it for granted.