Log in

View Full Version : where is prositution legal??



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Hopper
08-07-2009, 10:16 PM
Wow.

Just curious, what's your definition of feminism?

It's just a front for political goals. It's a branch of the socialist movement. See my brief history above.

bem401
08-07-2009, 10:20 PM
^^^^ more evidence that the most discriminated against demographic these days days is the straight white male

Hopper
08-07-2009, 10:28 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.

I did wonder if you meant I was the pain.


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.

Point of order: marriage is not traditional or conservative. It's a native human institution, just one which stands in the way of certain political interests. Actually feminists are very conservative. Conservative is a relative word, in that it depends on the system of the day. But feminists are authoritiarian and on many points puritanical.


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.

It's my toes or theirs, and in the end they are only points of view which later they will thank me for changing. Some people I don't mind stepping on at all. Some people will never change their thinking and I can pick them and not waste my time with them.

Are you hinting that you share my views?

Sugarmama
08-07-2009, 10:33 PM
Hooper needs a reality check truth of the matter is prostitution should be legal we all know and we all know not every time we give up the goodies its for pure love. Don't kid yourself.

Hopper
08-07-2009, 10:36 PM
Yup.
You got it.
Gender roles are crippling.

Not if they enjoy them. Those who don't enjoy them have the option of staying out of them. Problem?


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.

Sounds like a lot of work to me. I have no problem with my identity.


I identify totally as a feminist.
I doubt I (or many others) fit into your nice generic view of what a "feminist" really is.

There are many types of feminism, but they all share one underlying aim and philosophy. That's why they share the same name. After all, feminism itself is just an ideology contrived for manipulating the masses, it's not intended to be consistent. It is whatever is practical in any situation for achieving said aims. It changes it's form in order to appeal to different types of people or to promote particular lines of propaganda.

Of course lesbians identify with feminism.

xdamage
08-07-2009, 10:41 PM
...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.

...

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).



Let me answer you like this...

To me life is all just stuff. I don't believe in God, and I don't believe in purpose. It's just stuff and it is what we make of it. Yes, things are changing. There are 6.7 billion people on the planet. People like things not to change. They like simple rules (e.g., be fruitful and multiply) without being able to get the idea that maybe an idea that makes sense at one point in time no longer makes sense at another. Reproduction is not an end unto itself. Necessary yes, so is eating and deficating, but that doesn't mean the world was a better place in the past. If you really love the past, then why not wind back 100 years? 200? 1000? 10,000? Millions? At each change, people have lamented that today is not like yesterday.

So yes, women are saying we want more out of life then to be baby factories. And yes, that changes roles. And yes it means some male points of power are toppled. And yes, I love it... I think it is fantastic that people have taken the stuff, and through sheer will power, created art, entertainment, science, music, and so much more.

To me it is all just stuff, and it is up to us to give it meaning, or not. Women are striving to make their lives richer, to find meaning beyond being baby machines. I think that is awesome even if I can't tell you how it will all end, and surely there will be some growing pains along the way, but if I really thought the past was the way to go, then I might as well wind back time to cave people, or why not earlier, to single celled organisms? since the grass is always greener in the past?

Societies evolve whether we accept it or not.

Hopper
08-07-2009, 10:43 PM
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.

Other ethnic "classes" have whole countries to themselves, more than whites have. They don't look like giving whites a "fair" share of them. Homosexuals and women are not classes.

The elite is on the side of homosexuals, it's the rest of us that don't all accept your propaganda.

Hopper
08-07-2009, 10:49 PM
Hooper needs a reality check truth of the matter is prostitution should be legal we all know and we all know not every time we give up the goodies its for pure love. Don't kid yourself.

I'm aware that sex is not always for love, even in marriages. I also said I don't believe in laws against prostitution. But we like it when we do get it because the other person likes us. That was the point of my response to your last post.

Hopper
08-07-2009, 11:07 PM
Let me answer you like this...

To me life is all just stuff. I don't believe in God, and I don't believe in purpose. It's just stuff and it is what we make of it. Yes, things are changing. There are 6.7 billion people on the planet. People like things not to change. They like simple rules (e.g., be fruitful and multiply) without being able to get the idea that maybe an idea that makes sense at one point in time no longer makes sense at another. Reproduction is not an end unto itself. Necessary yes, so is eating and deficating, but that doesn't mean the world was a better place in the past. If you really love the past, then why not wind back 100 years? 200? 1000? 10,000? Millions? At each change, people have lamented that today is not like yesterday.

I don't get what this is saying. Nothing as far as I can tell.

I'm not talking about going back to the past. But progress does not mean abandonning everything we naturally do. In fact, progress is just about making what we naturally do easier. I don't like the past, I just care about what we do now of in the future. It is feminists who want to wind back the clock. They just market it as progress because winding back the clock doesn't have mass appeal, because the rest of us DON'T want to go backwards.

You contradicted yourself: you say you don't believe in purpose then you say reproduction is not an end in itself, implying that it serves a purpose.


So yes, women are saying we want more out of life then to be baby factories. And yes, that changes roles. And yes it means some male points of power are toppled. And yes, I love it... I think it is fantastic that people have taken the stuff, and through sheer will power, created art, entertainment, science, music, and so much more.

To me it is all just stuff, and it is up to us to give it meaning, or not. Women are striving to make their lives richer, to find meaning beyond being baby machines. I think that is awesome even if I can't tell you how it will all end, and surely there will be some growing pains along the way, but if I really thought the past was the way to go, then I might as well wind back time to cave people, or why not earlier, to single celled organisms? since the grass is always greener in the past?

Societies evolve whether we accept it or not.

Most women like producing babies. Even feminists. It's not a cruel joke of nature that they have that role by virtue of being physically equipped for it. Producing babies doesn't exclude other pursuits any more than a day job excludes them for the bread-winner.

I said before that any woman with a natural inclination and talent in some area wants a career in it she should not be hindered. But a minority of people of both sexes have any inclination to do so. Someone with a career is prevented by that career from pursuing other fields they might be interested in just as much as if they were a housewife and mother.

Again, progress is not about going back or forward in time, it's about doing what benefits us. You talk as if it is a choice between two extremes - staying in the past or abandonning everything in the past. Going forward means building on what has been achieved in the past. Reproduction and marriage, families are not things of the past, they are innately human. Without them, there would be no future.

xdamage
08-08-2009, 02:08 AM
I'm not talking about going back to the past. But progress does not mean abandonning everything we naturally do. In fact, progress is just about making what we naturally do easier. I don't like the past, I just care about what we do now of in the future. It is feminists who want to wind back the clock. They just market it as progress because winding back the clock doesn't have mass appeal, because the rest of us DON'T want to go backwards.


They want to wind back the clock? Really to what time?



You contradicted yourself: you say you don't believe in purpose then you say reproduction is not an end in itself, implying that it serves a purpose.


No. Your confusing yourself with words. And you know it. I meant no greater overseeing purpose. Yes, when you eat it has the purpose of putting energy in your body. Having sex often results in kids. Straws, grasping...



Most women like producing babies. Even feminists. It's not a cruel joke of nature that they have that role by virtue of being physically equipped for it. Producing babies doesn't exclude other pursuits any more than a day job excludes them for the bread-winner.


Reproduction is not some cruel joke, just evolution doing what it does, but humans are not all wired into simple A or B sexual types. Genetics is messy. Our sex, male vs female, tends to fall on a U curve, mostly male or female on either end, but there are some who, for various reasons end up with genes who are less clear. Feeling and thinking more like the other sex then the norm.

Many women will feel drives to have children, but welcome to what makes us unique. Our intellect. It makes possible choices and interests that diverge from following pure instinct. Are you worried that the earth's population is going to suddenly collapse because a small percentage of women choose not to have kids and pursue personal interests? Because consider my daughter who both wants a career and kids (but later) .. see that is another possibility.. that women today don't just want to spend their whole lives carrying for children from the moment they can conceive, and this is bothersome why?



Again, progress is not about going back or forward in time, it's about doing what benefits us. You talk as if it is a choice between two extremes - staying in the past or abandonning everything in the past. Going forward means building on what has been achieved in the past. Reproduction and marriage, families are not things of the past, they are innately human. Without them, there would be no future.

No, I'm not being black and white about it. The changes you are seeing do not obliterate families. They do not mean everything you thought you knew and loved are gone. People still have sex. People still are producing children. Some people. Not all. Even when I was younger it could be argued that family planning was somehow in violation of the normal order. That stopping at 2 was not normal. Some argued it was wrong to practice BC, that God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. Never mind that our intellect told us no, we don't have to just keep making children as fast as we can, that we can plan our futures, limit how many children we all have to slow population growth.

You seem to be viewing a change that is in fact relatively minor, a decrease in the number of people having children in some countries (still not worldwide) and arguing that OMG, the sky is falling and humanity will fail because women aren't cranking out babies at some rate comparable to what they did in the past. I'd argue that the slowing down of birth rate is actually a positive change! It is exactly what is needed to survive otherwise the world wide population will continue to grow, and just like animals that over populate, God doesn't care if we use up our resources and die off en-masse as a correction.

Cyril
08-08-2009, 02:28 AM
Hooper needs a reality check truth of the matter is prostitution should be legal we all know and we all know not every time we give up the goodies its for pure love. Don't kid yourself.

I think it is you who needs a reality check. You are at the end of the spectrum and you are occupying a very little portion of the spectrum. You need to realize this REALITY.

mediocrity
08-08-2009, 02:58 AM
I think it is you who needs a reality check. You are at the end of the spectrum and you are occupying a very little portion of the spectrum. You need to realize this REALITY.

Like you have any clue about women's issues and what they represent, or how it feels to be a woman.

Just leave already. Everyone is gunning for it.

xdamage
08-08-2009, 03:12 AM
I think it is you who needs a reality check. You are at the end of the spectrum and you are occupying a very little portion of the spectrum. You need to realize this REALITY.

I think she was just being honest. I think you're confusing what you want to believe (because is strokes your ego) with reality here. Honestly though why is her statement so threatening? Actually I know the answer. Just not sure if you're ready to face the truth.

Cyril
08-08-2009, 03:15 AM
I think she was just being honest. I think you're confusing what you want to believe (because is strokes your ego) with reality here. Honestly though why is her statement so threatening? Actually I know the answer. Just not sure if you're ready to face the truth.

Once again you are twisting the issue. The issue is, pro-prostitution lobby is at the end of the spectrum and even there they occupy very small space. That is the issue. It is not important for the sake of this discussion what I believe or I do not believe.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 05:17 AM
Like you have any clue about women's issues and what they represent, or how it feels to be a woman.

Prostitution isn't just a women's issue.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 05:56 AM
They want to wind back the clock? Really to what time?

Just before freedom o'clock. They want to tell everybody what to do.


No. Your confusing yourself with words. And you know it. I meant no greater overseeing purpose. Yes, when you eat it has the purpose of putting energy in your body. Having sex often results in kids. Straws, grasping...

It was hard to tell what you meant.


Reproduction is not some cruel joke, just evolution doing what it does, but humans are not all wired into simple A or B sexual types. Genetics is messy. Our sex, male vs female, tends to fall on a U curve, mostly male or female on either end, but there are some who, for various reasons end up with genes who are less clear. Feeling and thinking more like the other sex then the norm.

Tell that to the feminists - they are the ones trying to dictate the same system to everybody, not me. I already said that women should be free to do what suits them. But usually the most practical arrangement is man works for the money, woman keeps house. Neither necessarily has greater prestige or enjoyment than the other.

For those who think there is, I recommend "The Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar. I'm not sure if she is serious, but she does show that the same kind of arguments feminists use to show women are oppressed slaves can be used to show that men are oppressed slaves and women the exploiters. It just depends on which facts you select and which you ignore.

http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyarewomenneverunmasked.htm


Many women will feel drives to have children, but welcome to what makes us unique. Our intellect. It makes possible choices and interests that diverge from following pure instinct. Are you worried that the earth's population is going to suddenly collapse because a small percentage of women choose not to have kids and pursue personal interests? Because consider my daughter who both wants a career and kids (but later) .. see that is another possibility.. that women today don't just want to spend their whole lives carrying for children from the moment they can conceive, and this is bothersome why?

I'm not bothered. We aren't discussing what I would like women to do. I don't care what they choose to do, as long as it really is their own choice. We are discussing what feminists want. This does not coincide with what women in general naturally choose. Feminsist work just as hard to re-educate women as they do men.

What "women of today" want is heavily influenced by a feminism-saturated mass-media. Feminists do not want a small percentage to choose not to reproduce - they want all women to reproduce less. The birth rate feminist would like is zero - like the ZPGers. They (and environmentalists, with whom they are ideologically allied) think the world is already overpopulated and that population growth needs to stop.

There is a point at which low birth rate does threaten society. People are now worried about us being the "aging society" - one in which a large proportion is aged people who must be supported by younger producers.

Being a mother does not exclude pursuit of other interests any more than her husband having a day job or even a professional career excludes him from following other interests. A professional career would exclude other interests for a woman just as much as being a full-time mother would.


No, I'm not being black and white about it. The changes you are seeing do not obliterate families. They do not mean everything you thought you knew and loved are gone. People still have sex. People still are producing children. Some people. Not all. Even when I was younger it could be argued that family planning was somehow in violation of the normal order. That stopping at 2 was not normal. Some argued it was wrong to practice BC, that God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. Never mind that our intellect told us no, we don't have to just keep making children as fast as we can, that we can plan our futures, limit how many children we all have to slow population growth.

Family planning - what is that? Planning our futures around what? Something more important? Affording a more materialistic lifestyle? Overpopulation is an alarmist myth. The overpopulation scare is unsupported by historical experience.

In Red China, they have for long had the one-child policy. Un-liberated mothers who have more are hunted like criminals and forcefully aborted on the spot. Obviously it is possible for birth-control fanatics and "change" to get out of hand.


You seem to be viewing a change that is in fact relatively minor, a decrease in the number of people having children in some countries (still not worldwide) and arguing that OMG, the sky is falling and humanity will fail because women aren't cranking out babies at some rate comparable to what they did in the past. I'd argue that the slowing down of birth rate is actually a positive change! It is exactly what is needed to survive otherwise the world wide population will continue to grow, and just like animals that over populate, God doesn't care if we use up our resources and die off en-masse as a correction.

I'm not trying to force women to crank out babies faster, feminists are trying to brake the rate at which women normally like to have babies.

Partly the lower birth rate is a natural phenomena of our more prosperous society, where people have more leisure time and money for other diversions and pursuits than raising children, whereas in poorer societies, where even survival is uncertain, there is a need for families to have more children, to ensure descendents who will care for the parents and grandparents and to provide more labour for the subsistence communities.

Which is one of the reasons the overpopulation scare is false.

xdamage
08-08-2009, 07:58 AM
Once again you are twisting the issue. The issue is, pro-prostitution lobby is at the end of the spectrum and even there they occupy very small space. That is the issue. It is not important for the sake of this discussion what I believe or I do not believe.

Prostitution has been legalized in multiple countries now so world-wide not everyone agrees with you.

She also said "we all know not every time we give up the goodies its for pure love. Don't kid yourself. " - a very important point.

But I do think you may be backing down on your earlier premise that a woman's body is some thing she should freely give to men, out of love, some gift from God that is owed to you. If nothing else you may learn that this asset is one traded for various personal benefits.

xdamage
08-08-2009, 08:13 AM
Family planning - what is that? Planning our futures around what? Something more important? Affording a more materialistic lifestyle? Overpopulation is an alarmist myth. The overpopulation scare is unsupported by historical experience.


Yes, well it has taken this long to reach 6.7 billion people. I guess we need to have full out FAIL once or few times before we are able to go duh, so yea, we could have learned from smaller groups of people and animals what happens when they over populate and exceed the resources.

Actually some studies have been done. Seems animals start to act pretty badly when overcrowded in artificial conditions until they start dying off en-masse, struggling for food, increased violence, and more, but okay... people prefer to learn the hard way I guess.



In Red China, they have for long had the one-child policy.


Yes, and they just created that policy for no reason at all right? Not because ... oh wait, over population is a myth... you say below...



Partly the lower birth rate is a natural phenomena of our more prosperous society, where people have more leisure time and money for other diversions and pursuits than raising children, whereas in poorer societies, where even survival is uncertain, there is a need for families to have more children, to ensure descendents who will care for the parents and grandparents and to provide more labour for the subsistence communities.


Yes agreed but now connect the dots...That prosperity extends to the females as well. You know, more leisure time and diversion for them too... which is precisely what is happening here, the feminists which you are so worried about are just expressing they want a fair share of our prosperity, time for their own personal growth. That natural phenomena is not magic; it is because both males and females contribute to a general mindset of spending more resources on themselves (or a few kids) vs the mindset in a poorer society where there is not much to do but survive, eat and have sex, often using less safe BC methods like withdrawal.

So again, and why is it bothersome that the females in our society want to enjoy the increased leisure time and benefits of a wealthy society?




Which is one of the reasons the overpopulation scare is false.

Sure, that is why China above instituted laws to limit population growth, out of myth. (sarcasm)

And like it is impossible to imagine a general decline in life quality world-wide in which more countries are over populating contributing to a world-wide exponential growth pattern. (yes sarcasm)

I think we will have to agree to disagree on multiple points.

xdamage
08-08-2009, 10:13 AM
For those who think there is, I recommend "The Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar. I'm not sure if she is serious, but she does show that the same kind of arguments feminists use to show women are oppressed slaves can be used to show that men are oppressed slaves and women the exploiters. It just depends on which facts you select and which you ignore.

FWIW Hopper I'll give you what I posted in threads some time back.

That I do wonder if humans as they finish growing, have some natural inclinations to divide themselves into us vs them, leading to racism, and sexism. When I look at animals they just don't live in peace; they compete with each other and amongst themselves and amongst minor variations in their own species. Humans apparently do the same once their brains and bodies finish maturing, multi-million year old competitive and aggressive instincts kick in. So yea, it is worrisome that feminism may be used as a platform by some to promote beliefs that are arguably as dangerous as pre-feminism in which male views were predominate to a point of corruption, but...

This is apparently what humans do. We over-correct and hopefully later eventually come to something like a more middle ground. There is pretty good argument that men have oppressed women for a LONG time, so it's not completely unexpected that there is gonig to be some over correction in the revere direction, even sure, reverse sexism and oppression.

I also think we have over-corrected in the nature vs nurture beliefs our society holds. There was a time when nature was assumed; that people just assumed difference between men and women were pure nature. Today the pendulum has swing in the extreme other direction, a belief that men and women are identical, that men have a penis and women have a vagina and that is the difference. Basically that is the difference 5 years old see, and is in fact the least of differences that matter. It's the things they can't see, differences in brain wiring, brain chemistry, that the female is the child bearer, statistical differences in physical strength leading to points of control, and more that are so much more interesting.

So you're right to a degree, that roles are not purely a social construct, and that some feminists are perhaps over pushing the nurture arguments, but OTOH over corrections are probably needed to correct mistakes of the past. Eventually it should die down, find the murky middle ground, I hope anyway.

People aren't super smart though. They like everything to be really simple and follow simple rules, like it's ALL nature or ALL nurture; men and women are identical; my sex is all good and yours all bad; and other simplicities they can get their simple minds around. The reality is complex and often so intertwined there simply is no good way to know where nature vs nurture begins and ends.

But consider things from the female PoV as well... the modern belief that all human behavior is purely nurture, that we have no nature (and no male vs female nature) makes sense to those who have come from being oppressed. They reasonably worry that if it was found true that there are some natural statistical differences between the sexes, that the knowledge would be abused, an excuse to continue to oppress them.

The thing is the splitting of the sexes works! Evolution did not necessarily prepare us to understand why, that is pure luxury, but it is what worked, over and over. If if the best possible strategy was to reproduce as fast as possible with absolutely no restraint, then that is what would have worked. It didn't and doesn't. That strategy is Epic FAIL. The splitting of the sexes and the struggles and desires between them is an immensely complex dance of intertwined benefits, and even though we can't fully get our heads around it, we NEED each other.

Almost Jaded
08-08-2009, 02:49 PM
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.

This is precisely the reaction I was lamenting in my comment to Hopper. I do not believe in keeping anyone else down; I do not believe in preventing others from attaining equality.. I don't believe Hopper does either.

The points he makes regarding the underlying politics is where the attentive start to have issues. Your point -


I identify totally as a feminist.
I doubt I (or many others) fit into your nice generic view of what a "feminist" really is.

-is exactly what the people behind the moments in question are after. YOU - and most people like you in one way or another - are not the ones he's talking about.

*sigh*

I know I'm going to upset a LOT of people with this, and I apologize in advance. PLEASE try to see it for what it is and not get after me for the surface issues. I know lopaw and otoki will be upset, and others right behind them - again, please believe I respect you and the real topic isn't what it looks like - just like with feminism.

The "other issues" I referred to when addressing Hopper involve many things, but one of the biggest is so-called gay rights, and especially gay marriage.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GAY COUPLES OR WITH GAYS GETTING EQUAL TREATMENT!

But just like the feminism movements, the people who organized and orchestrated these movements could care less about gays (or womens) rights. The underlying political agenda - THAT MANY OF THE PEOPLE SUPPORTING AND/OR "BENEFITING" FROM IT ARE UNAWARE OF - pushes society toward a secularism and socialism that is dangerous. Destroying the family unit as the societal core is central to their aims. Feminism and gay rights are vehicles for their agenda, and represent a distraction more than a movement.

Again - equality for women, gays not being discriminated against, etc - NOT A BAD THING. But you need to look WAY past what you see in these so-called movements and into the people who got them moving. Look at what these people are slipping into the proposed legislation, at what they're doing at the U.N., what they're doing OUT of the general public's view.

The continued attacks on religious groups in general and the freedoms they are already guaranteed, under the guise of separation of church and state and free speech (hilarious, since they do nothing but restrict the freedom of expression of religious groups) are a 3rd face of this.

Please do not jump all over me or Hopper - I realize that I'm seen as siding with him and he's not well liked right now - but reading his posts I saw a knowledge that very few people have, of the real issues. (Hopper - that's why I know you would know people and so on, you're referring to things that not many people have any awareness of.) I can state with confidence that he has nothing against women or gays, any more than I do, but that he recognizes that progress as it's currently being made and measured constitutes stepping back in the bigger picture, because of the non-stated causes that are moving right along with it.

I hope that made some sense. :(

Almost Jaded
08-08-2009, 03:07 PM
Crap - I posted that after reading the last post on the last page; missed this whole page, lol.

x, lopaw, med, Jay (if you're reading this), other "thinkers" here - I implore you to try and see what Hopper is saying. He's more patient and therefor eloquent in many of his posts than I, yet there is still misunderstanding.

Now that I have seen where he's coming from, I know what he's about and where he's coming from. Like, in a big way, lol. Specifically - my family and the people they have worked with are largely responsible for uncovering much of the political trickery he is referring to. The fact that many of the people involved in fighting these agendas are from the so-called "religious right" hurts their credibility with more liberal thinkers (a line I've had to walk for almost 20 years now, being involved with them and being a more liberal thinker, lol).

Freedom and equality for ethnic minorities, women, gays, etc - are all a good thing. How it's accomplished is VERY important. If you're not familiar with the intricacies of constitutional law, international politics, and how the people called "They" work, it is easy to mistake people fighting "Them" as opposing "progress" for those groups. Such is NOT the case. People like Hopper (I really hope I read you right man, lol) and I dare say myself are FAR more concerned with equality for all than the people behind these "social issues", I assure you.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 04:56 PM
Prostitution has been legalized in multiple countries now so world-wide not everyone agrees with you.

Cyril said that pro-prostitution is at one small end of the spectrum. Legalising prostitution does not require advocating prostitution. Smoking is legal but not because everyone does it or approves of it. I don't wish prostitution to be illegal but I don't recommend women do it or wish to make use of it myself. There are other reasons why I don't want it to be illegal. Same goes for drugs.


She also said "we all know not every time we give up the goodies its for pure love. Don't kid yourself. " - a very important point.

And an obvious one so I don't know why she bothered.


But I do think you may be backing down on your earlier premise that a woman's body is some thing she should freely give to men, out of love, some gift from God that is owed to you. If nothing else you may learn that this asset is one traded for various personal benefits.

Again, Cyril did not originally mean that women should freely give it up to anyone on request. Giving it freely does not mean that it is not done out of some self-interest or benefit. Cyril's distinction is between having to pay for it and being able to get it because of personal attributes, be they wealth, charm, looks or whatever. You are taking "freely" too literally.

Grasping... straws...

Hopper
08-08-2009, 05:22 PM
Yes, well it has taken this long to reach 6.7 billion people. I guess we need to have full out FAIL once or few times before we are able to go duh, so yea, we could have learned from smaller groups of people and animals what happens when they over populate and exceed the resources.

Actually some studies have been done. Seems animals start to act pretty badly when overcrowded in artificial conditions until they start dying off en-masse, struggling for food, increased violence, and more, but okay... people prefer to learn the hard way I guess.

Populations don't increase so as to exceed resources. Remember those population graphs you had to draw in high school science class from bacteria in petrie dishes? They follow curves which rise and fall smoothly in cycles, not rise and then fall sharply.

One of the reasons for this (in animals) is that fertility-rate decreases as resources decrease. Fertility rate has also been found to decrease with health and rise with ill-health and also according to threatenning external, environmental survival threats. It's a survival feature and a regulator of population.

Regarding resource availability, human history shows that we don't use resources right up until there is none and then panic. The scarcer a resource gets, the mroe difficult it gets and the higher it's price becomes. So people slow down their use of it way before it disappears altogether and switch to alternatives or adopt lifestyles which don't require it (go without).

Overpopulation alarmists are also exaggerating how scarce resources are in comparison to our population. For example, "peak oil". The US has recently discovered that it has as much (if not more) oil as Saudi Arabia. Hubbert, an employee of Shell Oil, came up with the "peak oil" idea in 1956 before even investigating the data. He predicted the peak to occur between 1965-70, which it didn't. It doesn't look like peaking in the forseeable future even now, 60 years later..

He was not predicting a peak in available oil reserves, however, but US oil production, which is not the same thing. Production is artificially reduced, well below capacity and availability, for various shady business reasons.

Your alarmist, doomsday view is not supported by facts. It is just an instance of alarmism for the sake of justifying political measures which benefit those in government and their big business partners.


Yes, and they just created that policy for no reason at all right? Not because ... oh wait, over population is a myth... you say below...

China was never overpupulated. The reason the Communist regime tightenned the birth rate was because the socialist economic system is stagnant and cannot support large populations and because a small population is easier to control, which is why they also don't mind frequently arresting and murdering people at random to terrorise and control the people.


Yes agreed but now connect the dots...That prosperity extends to the females as well. You know, more leisure time and diversion for them too... which is precisely what is happening here, the feminists which you are so worried about are just expressing they want a fair share of our prosperity, time for their own personal growth. That natural phenomena is not magic; it is because both males and females contribute to a general mindset of spending more resources on themselves (or a few kids) vs the mindset in a poorer society where there is not much to do but survive, eat and have sex, often using less safe BC methods like withdrawal.

So again, and why is it bothersome that the females in our society want to enjoy the increased leisure time and benefits of a wealthy society?

I never said it was. But if both husbands and wives want less children, why would feminists need to demand it? Because they want birth rates to be even lower than what women and their husbands would volutnarily lower them to. And because feminists want state control over reproduction, as in China, as with everything else. Feminsist want it for diffrent reasons to couples (both men and women).


Sure, that is why China above instituted laws to limit population growth, out of myth. (sarcasm)

And like it is impossible to imagine a general decline in life quality world-wide in which more countries are over populating contributing to a world-wide exponential growth pattern. (yes sarcasm)

I think we will have to agree to disagree on multiple points.

An exponential growth pattern does not indicate that the pattern will continue indefinitely. Remember the petri dises - the curves smoothly rose and fell in succession. Get a grip son.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 05:43 PM
FWIW Hopper I'll give you what I posted in threads some time back.

That I do wonder if humans as they finish growing, have some natural inclinations to divide themselves into us vs them, leading to racism, and sexism. When I look at animals they just don't live in peace; they compete with each other and amongst themselves and amongst minor variations in their own species. Humans apparently do the same once their brains and bodies finish maturing, multi-million year old competitive and aggressive instincts kick in. So yea, it is worrisome that feminism may be used as a platform by some to promote beliefs that are arguably as dangerous as pre-feminism in which male views were predominate to a point of corruption, but...

This is apparently what humans do. We over-correct and hopefully later eventually come to something like a more middle ground. There is pretty good argument that men have oppressed women for a LONG time, so it's not completely unexpected that there is gonig to be some over correction in the revere direction, even sure, reverse sexism and oppression.

I also think we have over-corrected in the nature vs nurture beliefs our society holds. There was a time when nature was assumed; that people just assumed difference between men and women were pure nature. Today the pendulum has swing in the extreme other direction, a belief that men and women are identical, that men have a penis and women have a vagina and that is the difference. Basically that is the difference 5 years old see, and is in fact the least of differences that matter. It's the things they can't see, differences in brain wiring, brain chemistry, that the female is the child bearer, statistical differences in physical strength leading to points of control, and more that are so much more interesting.

So you're right to a degree, that roles are not purely a social construct, and that some feminists are perhaps over pushing the nurture arguments, but OTOH over corrections are probably needed to correct mistakes of the past. Eventually it should die down, find the murky middle ground, I hope anyway.

People aren't super smart though. They like everything to be really simple and follow simple rules, like it's ALL nature or ALL nurture; men and women are identical; my sex is all good and yours all bad; and other simplicities they can get their simple minds around. The reality is complex and often so intertwined there simply is no good way to know where nature vs nurture begins and ends.

But consider things from the female PoV as well... the modern belief that all human behavior is purely nurture, that we have no nature (and no male vs female nature) makes sense to those who have come from being oppressed. They reasonably worry that if it was found true that there are some natural statistical differences between the sexes, that the knowledge would be abused, an excuse to continue to oppress them.

The thing is the splitting of the sexes works! Evolution did not necessarily prepare us to understand why, that is pure luxury, but it is what worked, over and over. If if the best possible strategy was to reproduce as fast as possible with absolutely no restraint, then that is what would have worked. It didn't and doesn't. That strategy is Epic FAIL. The splitting of the sexes and the struggles and desires between them is an immensely complex dance of intertwined benefits, and even though we can't fully get our heads around it, we NEED each other.

It's true that the average person tends to think in simple terms about many things, trying to explain everything due to one cause, in this case either nature or nurture. But it has always been common sense that a person derived his attributes from both heredity and upbringing and environment. Really I think it is extremists who influence the general population away from what they know from experience and common sense. I would expect the intellectual class, who have more influence over the populaton than fringe extremists, not to be simple thinkers. However, many intellectuals in poitions of influence have been extremists. Shit floats.

Feminists are not trying to correct anything. Feminisim is a program of deliberate disinformation for a political agenda, and not a correct one. There is a natural tendency to over-correct, but feminism is sabotage. Left to themselves, honest people would collectively correct their attitudes less confrontationally than the way feminists have influenced them to.

Women have not been oppressed in the way feminists say they have. Feminsts call positive things like marriage, housekeeping and unrestricted childbearing oppression. Andrea Dworkin called heterosexual sex oppression. Women have had restrictions on them in the past, but they are not the main complaint that feminists have - they were just the shoe in the door.

I'm glad that you recognise that there are important and innate differences between the sexes and that these determine our natural biological and social roles.

Can I actually be making some friends at this site?

Hopper
08-08-2009, 05:58 PM
...

I know I'm going to upset a LOT of people with this, and I apologize in advance. PLEASE try to see it for what it is and not get after me for the surface issues. I know lopaw and otoki will be upset, and others right behind them - again, please believe I respect you and the real topic isn't what it looks like - just like with feminism.

The "other issues" I referred to when addressing Hopper involve many things, but one of the biggest is so-called gay rights, and especially gay marriage.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GAY COUPLES OR WITH GAYS GETTING EQUAL TREATMENT!

But just like the feminism movements, the people who organized and orchestrated these movements could care less about gays (or womens) rights. The underlying political agenda - THAT MANY OF THE PEOPLE SUPPORTING AND/OR "BENEFITING" FROM IT ARE UNAWARE OF - pushes society toward a secularism and socialism that is dangerous. Destroying the family unit as the societal core is central to their aims. Feminism and gay rights are vehicles for their agenda, and represent a distraction more than a movement.

...

...

Please do not jump all over me or Hopper - I realize that I'm seen as siding with him and he's not well liked right now - but reading his posts I saw a knowledge that very few people have, of the real issues. (Hopper - that's why I know you would know people and so on, you're referring to things that not many people have any awareness of.) I can state with confidence that he has nothing against women or gays, any more than I do, but that he recognizes that progress as it's currently being made and measured constitutes stepping back in the bigger picture, because of the non-stated causes that are moving right along with it.

I hope that made some sense. :(

Yes, the "homosexual movement" was not created by homosexuals for the benefit of homosexuals. It is another political front movement.

Again with the "knowing people" reference? I just read the right books.

I stopped apologising for what I say long ago. It doesn't make anything better. I just make my opinions clear and let people deal with it. It all comes out in the wash. Hated by many, liked by few, respected by all.

Cyril
08-08-2009, 06:04 PM
Hated by many, liked by few, respected by all.

I think I have to borrow this line to use in Immaculate Love. Very well said.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 06:09 PM
Crap - I posted that after reading the last post on the last page; missed this whole page, lol.

x, lopaw, med, Jay (if you're reading this), other "thinkers" here - I implore you to try and see what Hopper is saying. He's more patient and therefor eloquent in many of his posts than I, yet there is still misunderstanding.

People with no minds of their own deserve to be upset. It all comes out in the unbrainwash. Some people never come 'round - have to accept that. The point is to insist on having an equal say. The conditioning our society is recieving necessarily programs people to oppose others speaking up about it or expressing any opposing view. I can take it 'cos I'm bigger than they is.


Now that I have seen where he's coming from, I know what he's about and where he's coming from. Like, in a big way, lol. Specifically - my family and the people they have worked with are largely responsible for uncovering much of the political trickery he is referring to. The fact that many of the people involved in fighting these agendas are from the so-called "religious right" hurts their credibility with more liberal thinkers (a line I've had to walk for almost 20 years now, being involved with them and being a more liberal thinker, lol).

Interesting. It's clearer now what you meant about making yourself known. I don't know why it would be such a risk though, since many other people are awake to this through the numerous books written on it. You don't have to talk about who you know to talk about the subject. I didn't.


Freedom and equality for ethnic minorities, women, gays, etc - are all a good thing. How it's accomplished is VERY important. If you're not familiar with the intricacies of constitutional law, international politics, and how the people called "They" work, it is easy to mistake people fighting "Them" as opposing "progress" for those groups. Such is NOT the case. People like Hopper (I really hope I read you right man, lol) and I dare say myself are FAR more concerned with equality for all than the people behind these "social issues", I assure you.

You read me.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 06:18 PM
I think I have to borrow this line to use in Immaculate Love. Very well said.

I'm nothing if not pithy.

Almost Jaded
08-08-2009, 06:30 PM
I'm not concerned with people knowing me in a direct sense; I openly try to meet many of the members here IRL at their clubs or elsewhere. It's more of a programmed response, response to two things - one, people reacting negatively to name-dropping (worse than they respond to claiming you have access to more than usual information), and two, the fact that I "walk the line" I do. The aforementioned line of being a more liberal thinker and willing partaker of many life's available vices, lol. I have a habit of distancing myself from these people out of respect for their views, if that makes any sense, lol.

I have to say - it's odd coming on someone like you on a board "like this", lol. Not where I'd expect to have this convo - as I said before, many of the people I associate with these things are fairly religious/conservative (by the usual standards anyway). In any event, they wouldn't be on a stripper site, lol.

You mentioned "peak oil" and a few other things... Wild guess... Was "Fiasco" one of those books you mentioned?

lopaw
08-08-2009, 07:43 PM
Almost Jaded,

Unlike Hopper, you bring up interesting points that can be discussed rationally.
He knows absolutely NOTHING about true feminism, and he never will.
And since none of the birthin' or female/male relationship stuff has anything to do with me, I will bow out of this trainwreck of a thread, and wish you well.

Almost Jaded
08-08-2009, 07:50 PM
LOL - thank you for your measured response.

FWIW, I think Hopper - while more articulate than me in his carefully crafted responses - also said it best himself; he stopped caring what others thought and let them choose their level of ignorance. I have lived a life dealing with both sides of the fence, and see the virtues on all sides; I will always strive to bring understanding. In other words - he gets "true feminism" as he sees it; the same underlying problems I am so painfully aware of in its roots. I think he needs (I know you're reading this Hopper) to allow for the fact that there are followers of these causes who believe very firmly in the stated cause and have no roots in the politics.

I only want people involved in the feminist movement, gay rights movement, immigration debate, and more to know that those like us who may on the surface move against certain bills or vote against a certain law aren't doing so to hinder your rights or cause; it's about blocking "them", and achieve REAL equality without sacrificing other rights and freedoms along the way.

I hope that came across right, lol. :(

Gia2608
08-08-2009, 08:43 PM
This thread is too messy for me.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 09:34 PM
I'm not concerned with people knowing me in a direct sense; I openly try to meet many of the members here IRL at their clubs or elsewhere. It's more of a programmed response, response to two things - one, people reacting negatively to name-dropping (worse than they respond to claiming you have access to more than usual information), and two, the fact that I "walk the line" I do. The aforementioned line of being a more liberal thinker and willing partaker of many life's available vices, lol. I have a habit of distancing myself from these people out of respect for their views, if that makes any sense, lol.

I understood that you meant that you don't want your vice to reflect on people you know in a way they don't like. People here say they know better than me, so it's even.


I have to say - it's odd coming on someone like you on a board "like this", lol. Not where I'd expect to have this convo - as I said before, many of the people I associate with these things are fairly religious/conservative (by the usual standards anyway). In any event, they wouldn't be on a stripper site, lol.

We all have our vices. I'm not a regular though. The reality usually falls short of the image. It's odd finding you here too.


You mentioned "peak oil" and a few other things... Wild guess... Was "Fiasco" one of those books you mentioned?

This one?

http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/History/Military_History/United_States/product_info/3777752/?ref=163&osCsid=51206c871e2a3ed6523e6c1e4e89d22f

No, but I knew of it and it's on my list. Jerome R. Corsi writes about oil at World Net Daily (wnd.com).

Hopper
08-08-2009, 09:41 PM
Almost Jaded,

Unlike Hopper, you bring up interesting points that can be discussed rationally.
He knows absolutely NOTHING about true feminism, and he never will.
And since none of the birthin' or female/male relationship stuff has anything to do with me, I will bow out of this trainwreck of a thread, and wish you well.

I read what feminists say, not what they want you to think.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 09:47 PM
LOL - thank you for your measured response.

FWIW, I think Hopper - while more articulate than me in his carefully crafted responses - also said it best himself; he stopped caring what others thought and let them choose their level of ignorance. I have lived a life dealing with both sides of the fence, and see the virtues on all sides; I will always strive to bring understanding. In other words - he gets "true feminism" as he sees it; the same underlying problems I am so painfully aware of in its roots. I think he needs (I know you're reading this Hopper) to allow for the fact that there are followers of these causes who believe very firmly in the stated cause and have no roots in the politics.

I do, but they are dupes for doing so. There is no friendly way to disagree with many "true believers". I do begin by assuming the best. The irony is that they refuse to discuss opposing viewpoints because they are convinced that anyone who disagrees is closed-minded and therefore beneath contempt or irrational (which is what lopaw called me in her last post).


I only want people involved in the feminist movement, gay rights movement, immigration debate, and more to know that those like us who may on the surface move against certain bills or vote against a certain law aren't doing so to hinder your rights or cause; it's about blocking "them", and achieve REAL equality without sacrificing other rights and freedoms along the way.

I hope that came across right, lol. :(

One needs to know what freedom and equality are.

xdamage
08-08-2009, 10:10 PM
Populations don't increase so as to exceed resources. ... An exponential growth pattern does not indicate that the pattern will continue indefinitely. Remember the petri dises - the curves smoothly rose and fell in succession. Get a grip son.

You're partially correct and partially not. The petri dish example is flawed and I'll explain why.

The key detail that you are ignoring has to do with entropy.

For long periods of time resources that were under utilized have reached high states of entropy in various forms including: high concentrations of energy in easily usable forms (e.g., oil), high concentrations of nutrients (e.g., fish); the formation of useful forms of matter (e.g., wood); large volumes of fresh water; and more. One way to look at this is that huge amounts of energy that were present when the solar system formed, and also energy due to LONG periods of the sun pouring energy onto the earth, have been stored, kind of like a battery, in high entropy, easily usable forms.

It is important to understand that while it may have taken millions of years for the entropy to reach such high states, in a very short period of time those resources, like a battery drained, can be quickly utilized and left in lowered states.

Since 1800 the world population, less then 1 billion, has increased by a factor of almost 7x. There has been a dramatic increase in use of the world's high entropy resources. But the planet is finite in size. The resources are finite. The high energy state resources in particular finite.

You're also doing what people do. Flippantly writing off what it means to be born extremely poor in a country with limited resources and watching your children, loved ones, and self die when there is no longer enough food, water, materials for homes and clothing.

The petri dish is flawed, but if you spread the food thinner, and wait long enough, at some point the apparently stable colony will crash and burn when what is left is the container, light, and no more high entropy food to feed the living organisms.

xdamage
08-08-2009, 10:25 PM
Feminists are not trying to correct anything. Feminisim is a program of deliberate disinformation for a political agenda, and not a correct one. There is a natural tendency to over-correct, but feminism is sabotage. Left to themselves, honest people would collectively correct their attitudes less confrontationally than the way feminists have influenced them to.


You're attributing super villain powers to people. Deliberate as much as any of us are, people believe what they believe. Also I think you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. Like I bet you'd have a tough time arguing with women should have a right to vote. Or that they should have a right to attend the same schools as males. Or the right to be paid equal pay for equal work. The other problem is while many women consider themselves to be feminists, they are not all one hive mind with exactly the same beliefs.



Women have not been oppressed in the way feminists say they have. Feminsts call positive things like marriage, housekeeping and unrestricted childbearing oppression. Andrea Dworkin called heterosexual sex oppression. Women have had restrictions on them in the past, but they are not the main complaint that feminists have - they were just the shoe in the door.


Sure, like the middle east they are not oppressed. You're being an absolutists about this and not remembering history.

Let me give you an example to ponder.

Suppose we were not the most intelligent creatures on the planet. Suppose there was an equally intelligent creature who was about 2x stronger then humans on average, 2x bigger as well. In your daily life you had to live side by side with them. They tend to bully you. Limit your rights by insisting the better jobs go to them. If you talked back too much they would beat you for it, and going to the cops didn't help much because being and stronger, they were also the cops.

Okay this is a perfectly possible evolutionary situation. It could happen. And even though it is entirely natural, and even though those bigger creatures think all is beautifully ordered and wonderful, you might still feel oppressed. Your rights significantly limited not because you are not mentally capable, but because of your statistically smaller size.

I don't think I need to finish this... you can swap men and women for the actors above and ask does it apply?







I'm glad that you recognise that there are important and innate differences between the sexes and that these determine our natural biological and social roles.

Can I actually be making some friends at this site?

You can attribute that to the evolutionary psychologists, and socio-biologists ;) I just think they are probably somewhat right but the details are yet to be learned. Also it doesn't mean we are suppose to remain single celled organisms forever just because that was at one time our natural role. Our roles can change if a new strategy works. Our amazing intellects are resulting in amazing inventions, and as scary as it is, nothing in evolution says that can't happen or that it is unnatural.


p.s. on Andrea Dworkin ... she had some serious emotional problems with sex, though that doesn't mean she didn't have some valid points too. It's not all or nothing, just like it's not all or nothing when it comes to feminism in general.

lmiller22134
08-08-2009, 10:51 PM
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.

ahahaha sure we will give it freely out of affection as soon as men stop cheating or glaring at other women and treating women like sex toys....seriously when that happens then we can all ban prostitution across the world. i sure as hell know men dont want to sleep with me because they are being "affectionate"

Hopper
08-08-2009, 11:06 PM
You're attributing super villain powers to people. Deliberate as much as any of us are, people believe what they believe. Also I think you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. Like I bet you'd have a tough time arguing with women should have a right to vote. Or that they should have a right to attend the same schools as males. Or the right to be paid equal pay for equal work. The other problem is while many women consider themselves to be feminists, they are not all one hive mind with exactly the same beliefs.

Not super powers, just elite backing, since they are advancing elite interests.

Why would anyone oppose equal pay for equal work? LOL Whether or not boys and girls attend both a school is up to the school and it's patrons. It's not a right. It may not even be in the girl's interests.

There are different factions of feminism. That is for two reasons: (1) People are naturally factionalist and competitive and (2) feminism tries to be all things to all people and uses different tactics at different times for different situations. It was never a sincere ideology, only a pragmatic tool, so it can be changed at will.

Feminism presents a safe, mainstream image to the average person in order to gain support. The core of feminism is radical, but they realise that most people are not radical, yet they want mass support. So a woman can call herself a feminist and support feminism without truly being one, at least not entirely.


Sure, like the middle east they are not oppressed. You're being an absolutists about this and not remembering history.

Yes, but not here, where we have the most feminists. Strange, isn't it, that their main villain is the west, but in the west they are most free to speak.


Let me give you an example to ponder.

Suppose we were not the most intelligent creatures on the planet. Suppose there was an equally intelligent creature who was about 2x stronger then humans on average, 2x bigger as well. In your daily life you had to live side by side with them. They tend to bully you. Limit your rights by insisting the better jobs go to them. If you talked back too much they would beat you for it, and going to the cops didn't help much because being and stronger, they were also the cops.

Okay this is a perfectly possible evolutionary situation. It could happen. And even though it is entirely natural, and even though those bigger creatures think all is beautifully ordered and wonderful, you might still feel oppressed. Your rights significantly limited not because you are not mentally capable, but because of your statistically smaller size.

I don't think I need to finish this... you can swap men and women for the actors above and ask does it apply?

No.

If women are physically weaker and less intelligent, then it makes the most economic sense for the male to be in the workforce and the woman to keep house and care for the children. That wouldn't be oppression. We don't oppress - beat them or force them into inferior status or living conditions or servitude. Women are respected as equals. Not as being actually equal, since the sexes are different - good at different things - but as equally human and all that entitles them to.

There are men who do take advantage of women's physical weakness, but society as a whole does not condone it. Physically weaker men get taken advantage of too, so it's not even a gender issue. If a woman reports anassault to the police, they do do something about it.


You can attribute that to the evolutionary psychologists, and socio-biologists ;) I just think they are probably somewhat right but the details are yet to be learned.

p.s. on Andrea Dworkin ... she had some serious emotional problems with sex, though that doesn't mean she didn't have some valid points too. It's not all or nothing, just like it's not all or nothing when it comes to feminism in general.

Like you need to be emotionally sound to be a leading feminist. Dworkin has a lot of support from the core of radical feminism, so her emotional problems don's seem to disqualify her in their eyes. I don't know what valid points you mean, but it is true that the best lies are concealed in truth. You need a grain of truth to make a lie believable. The basic ideology is a lie. You could make that same argument for racism.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 11:15 PM
You're partially correct and partially not. The petri dish example is flawed and I'll explain why.

The key detail that you are ignoring has to do with entropy.

For long periods of time resources that were under utilized have reached high states of entropy in various forms including: high concentrations of energy in easily usable forms (e.g., oil), high concentrations of nutrients (e.g., fish); the formation of useful forms of matter (e.g., wood); large volumes of fresh water; and more. One way to look at this is that huge amounts of energy that were present when the solar system formed, and also energy due to LONG periods of the sun pouring energy onto the earth, have been stored, kind of like a battery, in high entropy, easily usable forms.

It is important to understand that while it may have taken millions of years for the entropy to reach such high states, in a very short period of time those resources, like a battery drained, can be quickly utilized and left in lowered states.

Since 1800 the world population, less then 1 billion, has increased by a factor of almost 7x. There has been a dramatic increase in use of the world's high entropy resources. But the planet is finite in size. The resources are finite. The high energy state resources in particular finite.

You're also doing what people do. Flippantly writing off what it means to be born extremely poor in a country with limited resources and watching your children, loved ones, and self die when there is no longer enough food, water, materials for homes and clothing.

The petri dish is flawed, but if you spread the food thinner, and wait long enough, at some point the apparently stable colony will crash and burn when what is left is the container, light, and no more high entropy food to feed the living organisms.

I disagree that resources are scarce in comparison to the needs of the present population. Most of the population of the earth does not make use of those resources because of the level of development of their societies. The greater part of the world's population is in undeveloped countries. ONce they develp, their populations will drop for the reasons I explained (and you agreed with).

I was not talking about people adopting a lower standard of living in response to scarcity, just a more moderate use of them and also technical development which enable more efficient use of them, greater recovery of deposits, and eventually alternatives.

This happenned with coal in the 19th centuray. People projected imminent shortages (like today), but they were based on known deposits and currrent technology. What actually happenned was that the scarcity encouraged technical development and search for more deposits, which provided gincreased supplies and more efficient energy use. Eventually people switched to oil and gas for many energy and lighting uses.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 11:19 PM
ahahaha sure we will give it freely out of affection as soon as men stop cheating or glaring at other women and treating women like sex toys....seriously when that happens then we can all ban prostitution across the world. i sure as hell know men dont want to sleep with me because they are being "affectionate"

Affection is itself a self-interest. I didn't say charity. Affection for another is based on the attributes - charm, ability, wealth, appearance - of the other person. Still different to having to pay a stranger by the hour.

women cheat also and view men as toys of a sort. We're even there.

lmiller22134
08-08-2009, 11:23 PM
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.)



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?



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.



Marriage without children is pointless. Most couples naturally do want them.

Actually, cleaning and decorating is a learned gender role that is instilled in women since birth. I am insulted that you think it is something we naturally want to do. I for one hate cleaning and lived in a boring apartment full of unpackedboxes for quite some time.
Also its funny how you point out that men want to slut around and that it hurts women yet you expect women NOT to want to charge for being treated like a toy? The fact that men want to sleep around is precisely the reason we do charge for it! Believe it or not it HURTS to be one of "many" we even out the playing field a tiny bit by charging. Youre not paying us to leave, you are paying us not to become completely depressed and feel completely useless once the act is over, and trust me, most women who sleep for free around feel that way pretty often.
I am also insulted that you say marriage without children is pointless. Bringing more people into a corrupt and overcrowded world is insanely selfish and pointless. Believing that your genetics are so amazing they just HAVE to be reproduced is vain and disgusting.

lmiller22134
08-08-2009, 11:30 PM
I'm aware that sex is not always for love, even in marriages. I also said I don't believe in laws against prostitution. But we like it when we do get it because the other person likes us. That was the point of my response to your last post.

women like it when they get it because the other person likes them too. Unfortunately too many men sleep with women they DONT like simply because they have a vagina. Casual sex is dramatic, heartbreaking, and can cause a lot of issues, both physical and emotional. Is it any wonder some women want to charge to be treated like an object and thrown away like garbage? Like i said before, once MEN start only having sex for love then women will do it to. Till then, its only fair that we can charge.

Almost Jaded
08-08-2009, 11:36 PM
No Hopper, I meant the one by Jack Anderson and James Boyd circa 1983. Interesting to see a new book by the same title approaching the aftermath of what those authors predicted would happen 25 years ago, lol. The issue re peak production and actual supplies vs the "diminishing resource" rhetoric are addressed in detail.

My new pet peeve is "climate change". The efficiency with which these people play on the public's ignorance is incredible. Of course, they've carefully crafted the proletariat to that point; but the ignorance and general apathy of people in the US. and other "educated" nations ceaselessly astounds me. We are fighting a losing battle my friend... :(

Hopper
08-08-2009, 11:49 PM
Actually, cleaning and decorating is a learned gender role that is instilled in women since birth. I am insulted that you think it is something we naturally want to do. I for one hate cleaning and lived in a boring apartment full of unpackedboxes for quite some time.

You are not most women and not like most women I know. I know not all women are as I described.


Also its funny how you point out that men want to slut around and that it hurts women yet you expect women NOT to want to charge for being treated like a toy? The fact that men want to sleep around is precisely the reason we do charge for it! Believe it or not it HURTS to be one of "many" we even out the playing field a tiny bit by charging. Youre not paying us to leave, you are paying us not to become completely depressed and feel completely useless once the act is over, and trust me, most women who sleep for free around feel that way pretty often.

I only said that men don't like to have to pay for it, I wasn't saying what I think men should do.

I don't think the reason prostitutes charge men for sex is to make them pay for sleeping around with lots of other girls for free.

Don't forget I am holding up marriage here as the norm for sexual relations. Sleeping around is just what most men and many women like to do. The reality is, as you say, that they are being used and realise it. Although they do get sexual enjoyment from it also. There must be something in it for them, or they must at least think so. Hey - isn't that what the liberated feminist woman is all about? You are free to sleep around TOO.

There is a middle ground between selfish casual sex and marriage - men often have relationships with the women they have sex with.


I am also insulted that you say marriage without children is pointless. Bringing more people into a corrupt and overcrowded world is insanely selfish and pointless. Believing that your genetics are so amazing they just HAVE to be reproduced is vain and disgusting.

I've addressed the issue of overcrowding. Lowering the population won't make society less corrupt or happier. There is a point to having children - we don't live forever for one thing and also because it is in our nature to want to raise them.

Sorry, but many people do believe that their genes are as worthy as the next person's. You're not a Nazi are you?

You've been brainwashed, my girl - by men.

Hopper
08-08-2009, 11:55 PM
women like it when they get it because the other person likes them too. Unfortunately too many men sleep with women they DONT like simply because they have a vagina. Casual sex is dramatic, heartbreaking, and can cause a lot of issues, both physical and emotional. Is it any wonder some women want to charge to be treated like an object and thrown away like garbage? Like i said before, once MEN start only having sex for love then women will do it to. Till then, its only fair that we can charge.

That's not going to happen. Which is why I beleive feminism is not in women's (and is in men's) interests. They oppose marriage (on principle), whihc is the only sexual relationship in which the man is obliged to give somthing back. Though smart women do oblige the man for casual sex, but feminst "equality" classes that as demeaning - prostitution in fact.

Hopper
08-09-2009, 12:34 AM
No Hopper, I meant the one by Jack Anderson and James Boyd circa 1983. Interesting to see a new book by the same title approaching the aftermath of what those authors predicted would happen 25 years ago, lol. The issue re peak production and actual supplies vs the "diminishing resource" rhetoric are addressed in detail.

My new pet peeve is "climate change". The efficiency with which these people play on the public's ignorance is incredible. Of course, they've carefully crafted the proletariat to that point; but the ignorance and general apathy of people in the US. and other "educated" nations ceaselessly astounds me. We are fighting a losing battle my friend... :(

Interesting book. It goes on my list too.

Yes, it's amazing what monopoly of the media and control of the government can achieve. But there are more of us and truth is easier to defend. Truth has a way of getting out of control all by itself. Keep telling it.

Almost Jaded
08-09-2009, 12:50 AM
I have moved my convo with Hopper to PM's, sorry for the threadjack.

I'll depart this thread with one more plea to those with whom I frequently agree - or enjoy discussing disagreements with - please try to see what Hopper is saying beyond surface hair-splitting. He's on to some very important things here. The more people that are awakened to it, the better for everybody, regardless of political differences that are very slight when divided to the lowest denominator. We can all agree that our individual freedom to disagree on these levels is important on a very serious level - if we loe that, these differences won't matter. :(

lmiller22134
08-09-2009, 01:06 AM
You are not most women and not like most women I know. I know not all women are as I described.



I only said that men don't like to have to pay for it, I wasn't saying what I think men should do.

I don't think the reason prostitutes charge men for sex is to make them pay for sleeping around with lots of other girls for free.

Don't forget I am holding up marriage here as the norm for sexual relations. Sleeping around is just what most men and many women like to do. The reality is, as you say, that they are being used and realise it. Although they do get sexual enjoyment from it also. There must be something in it for them, or they must at least think so. Hey - isn't that what the liberated feminist woman is all about? You are free to sleep around TOO.

There is a middle ground between selfish casual sex and marriage - men often have relationships with the women they have sex with.



I've addressed the issue of overcrowding. Lowering the population won't make society less corrupt or happier. There is a point to having children - we don't live forever for one thing and also because it is in our nature to want to raise them.

Sorry, but many people do believe that their genes are as worthy as the next person's. You're not a Nazi are you?

You've been brainwashed, my girl - by men.
Well you know what? most MEN i know are neat freaks and like to decorate their place nicely. Theyre not gay either...so just because from YOUR experience most women are domestic doesnt mean that thats truly a woman's nature. You clearly hang out with a different crowd than I do. We have different views and so our circle of friends are going to be a lot different. Your circle of friends are more traditionalists while mine are not so much.

If men dont like having to pay for it then they should stop treating sex like a commodity, period. Otherwise, tough.
Lowering the population will solve a LOT of problems. Do you seriously think that a shortage of food and water ISNT a result of overpopulation and massive over-consumption? Do you think people would have so much trouble finding a job if there werent so many other qualified people around? Even little annoyances like traffic woudl be solved by lowering the population. You sound like you have never lived in a big city. Where I live there is a water shortage...can you guess why? We have a ton of traffic...can you guess why? We are constantly destroying nature to make more an more buildings to accommodate peoples genetic masturbation. Because there is not enough space and too many of us, housing prices are through the roof, even in this economy. You cant find a place in a nice neighborhood for less than a million dollars.

You dont live forever...so what??? Are you that vain that you think your genes are so amazing they MUST be carried on for all eternity? Get over yourself. Its usually the most idiotic people who spawn the most children anyway...the people who SHOULD be handing down their genes rarely want more than 2 kids, or any at all. Do you care about any of the animals on the endangered species list? What makes humans so special? Once you're dead you wont care that you're dead anyway.

Hopper
08-09-2009, 01:32 AM
Well you know what? most MEN i know are neat freaks and like to decorate their place nicely. Theyre not gay either...so just because from YOUR experience most women are domestic doesnt mean that thats truly a woman's nature. You clearly hang out with a different crowd than I do. We have different views and so our circle of friends are going to be a lot different. Your circle of friends are more traditionalists while mine are not so much.

Hold on LBJ.

I wasn't just talking about traditionalist men and women and they aren't the kind I hang out with. I once lived with a radical feminist who (when she wasn't yelling "fascist pigs" at the TV) behaved like a "stereotypical" woman.


If men dont like having to pay for it then they should stop treating sex like a commodity, period. Otherwise, tough.

Both men and women treat sex like a commodity - men are just the buyers. It takes two. I mean that in the sense that women don't give it away for nothing - there has to be something in it for them, even if it's just the company of a guy she likes and who preferably also likes her back.


Lowering the population will solve a LOT of problems. Do you seriously think that a shortage of food and water ISNT a result of overpopulation and massive over-consumption? Do you think people would have so much trouble finding a job if there werent so many other qualified people around? Even little annoyances like traffic woudl be solved by lowering the population. You sound like you have never lived in a big city. Where I live there is a water shortage...can you guess why? We have a ton of traffic...can you guess why? We are constantly destroying nature to make more an more buildings to accommodate peoples genetic masturbation. Because there is not enough space and too many of us, housing prices are through the roof, even in this economy. You cant find a place in a nice neighborhood for less than a million dollars.

Shortage of water is due to inadequate supply facilities, not the oceans running out. Shortage of food is due to backward political-economic systems in the third world (and western systems are going the same way). Unemployment is due to burdens on enterprise - to have jobs, you need companies to provide them. Traffic congestion is due to inadequately designed road systems - that is the experience of the city I live in. Housing prices (like all prices) are due to corrupt government tampering withthe economy on a massive scale.

Look at a map - those little dots on it are where most of the buildings are. The rest is mostly empty. Even the dots are not to scale. Even in the cities and towns there are huge areas of unused land and on built areas trees line the streets and grow in every yard and park. You couldn't call a small lot of unused land within a city "nature" anyway.


You dont live forever...so what??? Are you that vain that you think your genes are so amazing they MUST be carried on for all eternity? Get over yourself. Its usually the most idiotic people who spawn the most children anyway...the people who SHOULD be handing down their genes rarely want more than 2 kids, or any at all. Do you care about any of the animals on the endangered species list? What makes humans so special? Once you're dead you wont care that you're dead anyway.

I mean that we don't live forever so if we don't reproduce we are extinct in one generation. Or even if we slow right down we become an "aging populataion" where the young are burdenned by producing for the more numerous aged.

I do think genes are pretty amazing. Human beings are amazing. You don't like them? Then why not cancel your own parent's mistake by jumping from a tall building? You won't care afterward.

I care about humans as much as endangered species. Most of the species on that list are not really endangered. Penn and Teller did a good episode on that scam.

That remark about the stupid spawning the most children is elitist. You sound like a Nazi. Or Margaret Sanger, from whom the Nazi's got their eugenics from. She believed that social ills could be eliminated by preventing the lower classes (whom she equated with genetically unfit) from reproducing.

Told you you were brainwashed.