View Full Version : where is prositution legal??
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
[
6]
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
lmiller22134
08-09-2009, 01:56 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Goddamn you dont get it do you? The only reason women treat it as a commodity is because men do so. IF men stopped doing so, women would probably stop too, so instead of complaining that pussy should be free how about treating women with a little more respect? Maybe then they wont want you to do them favor to sleep with them...Have you ever thought that maybe women charging is a direct result of men belittling women to solely providers of physical pleasure? I mean obviously if we are going to be seen that way the smart thing would be to charge. You understand that they need to get SOMETHING back, so when women arent given ANYTHING back they are put in a huge disadvantage. A smart women would thus chose to not engage in sex at this point, or charge for it. A lot of men want to be given sex for absolutely NOTHING...not commitment, not love, not even a tiny bit of respect or a goddamned compliment, or a simple phone call. And I am not speaking for myself because I dont go anywhere near men who do this bullshit.
And I dont know why you are even bringing up the ocean since most of our water does NOT come from the ocean, but from bodies of freshwater. Seriously if you think our system is so faulty and that we can easily produce enough food or water to feed our ever expanding population then why dont you do something about it??? You dont because you know that in theory it might sound like we are just lazy asses and we could easily come up with enough resources for everyone but we simply CANT.
And I dont know about you but I never plan to be a burden for your precious youth. THe moment I become incapable of taking care of myself is the moment i tell the hospital to put me to sleep.
We dont keep ourselves alive because we think humans are amazing...youre absolutely ridiculous. We keep ourselves alive to enjoy the moment we have on earth, because we might never have it again. Having a kid isnt going to prolong that moment though because our soul isnt freaking transfered to our kid, there really is no point in having kids other than to show off how amazing you think your genes are or to burden them with taking care of you when you're old. I dont think my genes are amazing and i dont think society would be worse or better off without me. I'm not that vain. When I die the world is going to keep turning whether I have kids or not.
Did Penn and Teller also tell you we get our water from the ocean???
Actually my ideals are not the same because I recognize that a lot of the shittiest people in this world are actually members of the "upper class."
mediocrity
08-09-2009, 02:21 AM
lm, if I could thank you a million times I would.
paperheart
08-09-2009, 02:32 AM
Really great post lm and I'm glad it's one of the first I read here.
Hopper
08-09-2009, 02:46 AM
Goddamn you dont get it do you? The only reason women treat it as a commodity is because men do so. IF men stopped doing so, women would probably stop too, so instead of complaining that pussy should be free how about treating women with a little more respect? Maybe then they wont want you to do them favor to sleep with them...Have you ever thought that maybe women charging is a direct result of men belittling women to solely providers of physical pleasure? I mean obviously if we are going to be seen that way the smart thing would be to charge. You understand that they need to get SOMETHING back, so when women arent given ANYTHING back they are put in a huge disadvantage. A smart women would thus chose to not engage in sex at this point, or charge for it. A lot of men want to be given sex for absolutely NOTHING...not commitment, not love, not even a tiny bit of respect or a goddamned compliment, or a simple phone call. And I am not speaking for myself because I dont go anywhere near men who do this bullshit.
Whichever sex the person who started it was, it was so long ago we'll never find out. I doubt either will ever stop. You sound like a raving man-hater. Not all men are the kind you are complaining about.
I never complained that pussy should be free. My point was that men like it whenit is given for other reasons than an hourly rate. I do treat women with respect, compliment them, spend money on them. phone calls, often whole conversations. Even to women who don't sleep with me.
Question: why DO women sleep with men without getting anything back? Maybe they just enjoy the sex and company as much as the man. Why should they get any more than that? You think you ARE the favour to us? Well I'd agree, but I think you are egotistical to say so. It's a bit uneven.
Men normally do phone, compliment, take out etc women - to get them to have sex with them. Not many women would do it if they didn't get at least that, so the men must do it. So you are asking for commitment in return for sex? Sex takes less of your time than commitment takes of ours, so you are being just as unfair as men are. It sounds like a transaction. However,many men want to commit to one girl for a certain amount of time if they find a good one.
And I dont know why you are even bringing up the ocean since most of our water does NOT come from the ocean, but from bodies of freshwater. Seriously if you think our system is so faulty and that we can easily produce enough food or water to feed our ever expanding population then why dont you do something about it??? You dont because you know that in theory it might sound like we are just lazy asses and we could easily come up with enough resources for everyone but we simply CANT.
Heard of the rain cycle? It's how those freshwater bodies get there. I am doing something to fix it by telling others how, but you are opposing it right now by not listenning. You sound way too sure of yourself.
And I dont know about you but I never plan to be a burden for your precious youth. THe moment I become incapable of taking care of myself is the moment i tell the hospital to put me to sleep.
We need the aged - they provide experience. My point was that if the brith rate is too low, the number of producers drops in proportion to the total number of consumers.
We dont keep ourselves alive because we think humans are amazing...youre absolutely ridiculous. We keep ourselves alive to enjoy the moment we have on earth, because we might never have it again. Having a kid isnt going to prolong that moment though because our soul isnt freaking transfered to our kid, there really is no point in having kids other than to show off how amazing you think your genes are or to burden them with taking care of you when you're old. I dont think my genes are amazing and i dont think society would be worse or better off without me. I'm not that vain. When I die the world is going to keep turning whether I have kids or not.
I didn't say having children makes the parents immortal, I meant that reproduction is necessary to continue our existence. You should read my posts before responding.
I meant that genes are amazing, not that only mine are. Humans do have value, or else we would not bother to live. If you don't value humankind, then why are you worried about the welfare of women?
Did Penn and Teller also tell you we get our water from the ocean???
Actually my ideals are not the same because I recognize that a lot of the shittiest people in this world are actually members of the "upper class."
Err,,, we do get our water from the ocean. If we didn't, we could arrange it - using desalination plants and long-distance pipes (like they use for transporting oil).
Well fortunately they are in the minority, so we can let them reproduce safely at whatever rate they choose. Hopefully they will be too stupid to survive.
Hopper
08-09-2009, 02:46 AM
lm, if I could thank you a million times I would.
You like watching people make fools of themselves?
lmiller22134
08-09-2009, 03:06 AM
Whichever sex the person who started it was, it was so long ago we'll never find out. I doubt either will ever stop. You sound like a raving man-hater. Not all men are the kind you are complaining about.
I never complained that pussy should be free. My point was that men like it whenit is given for other reasons than an hourly rate. I do treat women with respect, compliment them, spend money on them. phone calls, often whole conversations. Even to women who don't sleep with me.
Question: why DO women sleep with men without getting anything back? Maybe they just enjoy the sex and company as much as the man. Why should they get any more than that? You think you ARE the favour to us? Well I'd agree, but I think you are egotistical to say so. It's a bit uneven.
Men normally do phone, compliment, take out etc women - to get them to have sex with them. Not many women would do it if they didn't get at least that, so the men must do it. So you are asking for commitment in return for sex? Sex takes less of your time than commitment takes of ours, so you are being just as unfair as men are. It sounds like a transaction. However,many men want to commit to one girl for a certain amount of time if they find a good one.
Heard of the rain cycle? It's how those freshwater bodies get there. I am doing something to fix it by telling others how, but you are opposing it right now by not listenning. You sound way too sure of yourself.
We need the aged - they provide experience. My point was that if the brith rate is too low, the number of producers drops in proportion to the total number of consumers.
I didn't say having children makes the parents immortal, I meant that reproduction is necessary to continue our existence. You should read my posts before responding.
I meant that genes are amazing, not that only mine are. Humans do have value, or else we would not bother to live. If you don't value humankind, then why are you worried about the welfare of women?
Err,,, we do get our water from the ocean. If we didn't, we could arrange it - using desalination plants and long-distance pipes (like they use for transporting oil).
Well fortunately they are in the minority, so we can let them reproduce safely at whatever rate they choose. Hopefully they will be too stupid to survive.
Yes we CAN get our water from the ocean, but its NOT where we get most of our water. YES it can be arranged, but it is more difficult to do so, why MOST of our water comes from fresh bodies.
You are right, not all men are like the kind I am complaining about. But I am not complaining about all men. I am complaining about men who have such a superiority complex and think they are gods gift to the world that they think they DESERVE free sex. No one deserves free ANYTHING...PERIOD.
What company? I just told you they get NOTHING back. Why do they do it? Several reasons- low self esteem, men telling them they HAVE to give away free sex, being brainwashed into thinking that thats what liberated women do, thinking that they have to do so to be cool, etc, etc. Some do it because they are manipulated and think they are actually going to get a relationship or love out of it and then are heartbroken to realize they arent going to get ANYTHING.
Yes some men do phone and such to manipulate a woman into bed...and then stop once hes got what he wanted, NOT A FAIR TRADE. Some dont, they just say "hey baby want to fuck" and somehow, for reasons i will never understand, it works. In both situations the guy is a complete asshole.
Saying sex is worth less than commitment just because it takes less time to do is like saying a person who does intellectual or artistic labor is worth less than someone who does manual labor because manual labor is more strenuous and time consuming. If you think sex isnt worth at least commitment then you probably shouldnt be having it. Afterall werent you the one that said that the point of having sex is to have kids? I cant think of a bigger forced commitment than that.
Hopper
08-09-2009, 03:44 AM
Yes we CAN get our water from the ocean, but its NOT where we get most of our water. YES it can be arranged, but it is more difficult to do so, why MOST of our water comes from fresh bodies.
The rain cycle: Ocean water evapourates and rises into the sky, becomes clouds, condenses when the clouds pass over land, falls as rain, fills freshwater bodies including fivers, which flow back to the ocean. That's why freshwater bodies don't dry up and there's always water in your pipes.
You are right, not all men are like the kind I am complaining about. But I am not complaining about all men. I am complaining about men who have such a superiority complex and think they are gods gift to the world that they think they DESERVE free sex. No one deserves free ANYTHING...PERIOD.
And you think I'm one because I stay away from prostitutes.
What company? I just told you they get NOTHING back. Why do they do it? Several reasons- low self esteem, men telling them they HAVE to give away free sex, being brainwashed into thinking that thats what liberated women do, thinking that they have to do so to be cool, etc, etc. Some do it because they are manipulated and think they are actually going to get a relationship or love out of it and then are heartbroken to realize they arent going to get ANYTHING.
That didn't become cool until the sexual revolution - free love, teen rebellion, etc. , so it's pretty recent, not a product of tradition.
Yes some men do phone and such to manipulate a woman into bed...and then stop once hes got what he wanted, NOT A FAIR TRADE. Some dont, they just say "hey baby want to fuck" and somehow, for reasons i will never understand, it works. In both situations the guy is a complete asshole.
Problem is it's hard to tell. But then women can be assholes too.
Saying sex is worth less than commitment just because it takes less time to do is like saying a person who does intellectual or artistic labor is worth less than someone who does manual labor because manual labor is more strenuous and time consuming. If you think sex isnt worth at least commitment then you probably shouldnt be having it. Afterall werent you the one that said that the point of having sex is to have kids? I cant think of a bigger forced commitment than that.
I think it's worth something. Marital commitment isn't just for sex, it's for raising children. Gives them time to grow up in the care of two parents.
Assholes aside, many men and women happily have one-night stands and get something out of it because they are considerate enough to one another for both to enjoy it.
BTW are you drunk?
xdamage
08-09-2009, 05:35 AM
Not super powers, just elite backing, since they are advancing elite interests.
Name the conspirators.
Why would anyone oppose equal pay for equal work? LOL
Now you're just choosing to ignore that there are reasons why females feel oppressed and therefore are drawn to a movement.
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.
Again, apparently you've just chosen to forget the world as it was just recently here (I mean even going back just a handful of generations).
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.
They are statistically physically weaker and smaller, but not less intelligent. The word intelligent is a simple word for a vastly complex set of abilities and it's being shown that statistically they have greater abilities in some areas, we males greater in some, but the difference are statistically minor.
But no you're conclusion is what I 100% disagree with, and is what I hope changes. I'll add that below...
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.
Some societies do outright condone out and our own was far too tolerant of it, and still is in parts of the USA.
Your final conclusion though which essentially is -
"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. " - Hopper
Is what I completely disagree with and is at the core of why so many females are backing feminism. It is also at the core of why people revolt against oppressive governments. Why they formed unions against oppressive employers. I'm not saying they can't come to have unrealistic expectations, even the oppressed can become corrupt, but power corrupts and holding the upper hand, for whatever reasons (including the genetic lottery) does not give us a God given right to oppress. It is a choice. And if men choose to use their greater physical strength to oppress then they should hardly be surprised that the oppressed will want to fight back.
That said there is a parallel to another thread here. Even the oppressed can come to want only the benefits, and not the costs. I am 100% in favor of equal treatment of females, but it is true that it is complicated and possible for a movement to go on beyond fighting oppression and into it's own kind of corrupt self-serving death spiral. I see some signs of that but it's not all or nothing yet either.
xdamage
08-09-2009, 05:45 AM
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.
The earth is some 4.5 billion years old... some of the resources of concern formed over hundreds of millions of years; some just hundreds of thousands, but that our guesses as to when resources would run out have been incorrect over the last 100 or not proof that there is no issue.
Don't confuse getting the specifics details right over the short term with still being able to see a significant looming pattern over the long term. I see similarities to your feminism arguments where you seem to just ignore the long term historical patterns and say well "I'm okay in my specific situation, so there is no problem" This is a common short sightedness, confusing our personal situation with the bigger long term picture that affects so many others and explains their actions and points of view, if we'd only listen.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-09-2009, 06:13 AM
Now you're just choosing to ignore that there are reasons why females feel oppressed and therefore are drawn to a movement.
The women that hate men started the movement and the normal women just follow along.
xdamage
08-09-2009, 06:31 AM
Yes we CAN get our water from the ocean, but its NOT where we get most of our water. YES it can be arranged, but it is more difficult to do so, why MOST of our water comes from fresh bodies.
Or in our country, from dams, reservoirs and pipelines because the natural resources were not adequate to support our populations in the places and lifestyle they want.
What people forget in the USA is that even technologically savy nations are not immune from droughts, essentially short term changes in availability of a recyclable resource.
In those places where the population density pushes the limits of their resources, they are more likely to suffer dramatically when a drought cycle occurs, and they do occur, even here in the USA.
Both in CA and PA we've been through drought cycles. Our technology, relatively low population density (allowing us to have much spare capacity), and forced reduction in water use allowed us to live through it comfortably.
In other nations where they were too fruitful and multiplied without any overall agreement to limit their populations, where they populated right up to what the environment would support, are effected much worse when a drought occurs. And yes Hopper is right such massive die offs and pain limits population growth, but that doesn't mean the people in our country should be so stupid as to reproduce without limits putting ourselves in the same eventual position.
The fact is I think Hopper is being a bit silly as he is arguing both that people should not be concerned about population explosions, and also that people self limit their population because of resource limits. He is arguing it both ways and not connecting the final dot between these points. It's precisely because we are concerned about matters like our life style, resource limits and wanting something in reserve in case of crisis, that we limit our population and that is arguably a wise choice, not some feminist evil plot.
yoda57us
08-09-2009, 06:49 AM
As I read the title of this thread and then read the last three or four pages of posts I honestly can't understand why this is still open and the "dream girls" thread is closed....
and no, I'm not kidding....
xdamage
08-09-2009, 06:54 AM
The women that hate men started the movement and the normal women just follow along.
This is a good time to tie into your pro-union beliefs...
I think I'd say it differently then you...
1.) Women who were fed up started it (yes well that is the way it works, same reasons unions form, which you are in favor of).
2.) Some of the loudest members now may well be sexists whose primary agenda is male hatred, but...
3.) Many are moderates, well reasoned, and just want a fair share in life.
BTW do you see any parallels here to the formation of unions? Like maybe they were started because there were actual oppressive behaviors that warranted some people stepping up, out of anger even, and doing something about it? But that the results are similar? Some follow out of dramatic emotions possibly no longer warranted, while most just follow along because the feel it is of benefit to them to keep employers (or in this case the patriarchy) regulated.
I just warn again though about throwing out the baby with the bath water and these all or nothing povs. I have the same opinion of feminism I have of unions. It's not all bad. The general idea is good. There are radicals who I think are in it for the wrong reasons. Just like unions, or any groups of people, even feminists could want want want with no limits ... checks and balances are needed. I have no problem with males pushing back and checking and balancing, just with the complete dismissal of feminism as an entirely bad thing because their brains can't cope with a fuzzy gray mix of positives and negatives.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-09-2009, 07:01 AM
As I read the title of this thread and then read the last three or four pages of posts I honestly can't understand why this is still open and the "dream girls" thread is closed....
and no, I'm not kidding....
This thread has not deteriorated into name calling as "dream girls" did. There is still an exchange of ideas. What are you a Nazi? :P
Earl_the_Pearl
08-09-2009, 07:03 AM
2.) Some of the loudest members now may well be sexists whose primary agenda is male hatred, but...
This could get ugly so I will :-X.
xdamage
08-09-2009, 08:36 AM
This could get ugly so I will :-X.
I doubt it. Sexism and racism exist in varying degrees from mild to extremes. There is no point in pretending not. Often people are unaware of their own degree or are even proud of it. Most people don't think they are racists or sexists yet if you ask other races or sexes they may see it very differently. Often racists and sexists have some valid points even, maybe some bad experiences, but in the extreme cases the valid points are intermixed with hate for the sake of hate.
Nothing to be done about that but take the heat of facing extremism head on. If everyone tippy-toed around the extremists then extreme views would thrive and the world would be a worse place for it.
Cyril
08-09-2009, 09:12 AM
You like watching people make fools of themselves?
I doubt she knows the difference. :D
Cyril
08-09-2009, 09:14 AM
This thread has not deteriorated into name calling as "dream girls" did. There is still an exchange of ideas. What are you a Nazi? :P
Dream Girls was sabotaged because ..............
lmiller22134
08-09-2009, 01:55 PM
The rain cycle: Ocean water evapourates and rises into the sky, becomes clouds, condenses when the clouds pass over land, falls as rain, fills freshwater bodies including fivers, which flow back to the ocean. That's why freshwater bodies don't dry up and there's always water in your pipes.
And you think I'm one because I stay away from prostitutes.
That didn't become cool until the sexual revolution - free love, teen rebellion, etc. , so it's pretty recent, not a product of tradition.
Problem is it's hard to tell. But then women can be assholes too.
I think it's worth something. Marital commitment isn't just for sex, it's for raising children. Gives them time to grow up in the care of two parents.
Assholes aside, many men and women happily have one-night stands and get something out of it because they are considerate enough to one another for both to enjoy it.
BTW are you drunk?
Holy shit you seriously think its not possible to ever have a water shortage? OMG. To live in your ignorant world....
No I think you're one because you say sex should be free, not because you dont visit hookers. NOTHING in life is free, EVER, and saying that something HAS to be free for a specific gender is absolutely degrading to the people expected to do the free action.
Assholes aside, many men and women happily have one-night stands and get something out of it because they are considerate enough to one another for both to enjoy it.
Yesh sure of course they get something out of it, a VD, depression, lowering of the self esteem...you are absolutely insane and delusional if you think women enjoy having one night stands. I will never understand how men enjoy it...guess they don't have a heart. If you like someone enough to have sex with them for absolutely NOTHING, wouldnt that mean that you want to see them again? Even hookers have regulars, which shows even some MEN dont like one night stands.
Elvia
08-09-2009, 02:08 PM
Yesh sure of course they get something out of it, a VD, depression, lowering of the self esteem...you are absolutely insane and delusional if you think women enjoy having one night stands. .
I don't disagree with everything you've said in this thread, but please don't speak for all women. Some women do enjoy sex just for the pleasure of it on occasion. I don't have one night stands, but I don't seek to make judgements or assumptions on every woman who has ever had a one night stand.
lmiller22134
08-09-2009, 02:10 PM
I don't disagree with everything you've said in this thread, but please don't speak for all women. Some women do enjoy sex just for the pleasure of it on occasion. I don't have one night stands, but I don't seek to make judgements or assumptions on every woman who has ever had a one night stand.
if you dont have one night stands then how can you possibly know that other women enjoy it? If they enjoy sex just for the sex then they would be happy with a dildo, no asshole who is only using them for a free toy necessary...
Honestly i think it is these women who claim to enjoy one night stands that are the reason men have such a huge sense of sexual entitlement.
Elvia
08-09-2009, 02:14 PM
^^^ And how can you possibly know they don't?
Why is it the woman "being used"by the man in this scenario? Couldn't you just as easily say he's being used by her? If anyone is being used, it seems more logical that they are "using" eachother.
I talk with my friends about sex, and some of them have been pretty happy and excited over one night stand experiences. They seem pretty happy and functional in their daily lives, so I trust them to be able to make their own choices when it comes to their sexuality. Seems pretty condescending and unfair to assume otherwise.
lmiller22134
08-09-2009, 02:17 PM
^^ ^ And how can you possibly know they don't?
Why is it the woman "being used"by the man in this scenario? Couldn't you just as easily say he's being used by her? If anyone is being used, it seems more logical that they are "using" eachother
being used as a free sex toy in the past
even just being grabbed by a stranger for no compensation is absolutely horrifying, which is why i quit promo modeling and became a stripper.
hearing other women cry about how a guy they met and hooked up with never called them back
etc, etc
unfortunately i do not hear nearly as many men cry about their one night stand not returning their calls, which is why i feel the woman is the more used one.
Elvia
08-09-2009, 02:20 PM
^^^ Just because some women are unhappy about their experiences doesn't mean that you can assume they all are. I'm sorry you had a bad experience but it doesn't logically follow that every woman who had a one night stand was "used." Being "grabbed by a stranger" is hardly the equivalent of a consensual, shared sexual experience.
Almost Jaded
08-09-2009, 02:56 PM
lmiller - You are a woman. When another woman has an experience good or bad, you share with each other. You're more selective of what you share with your guy friends. Experiences like that fall into the "girl talk" category. Guys act differently, but believe it or not - guys talk to their closest friends about this stuff, too. And you know what? I've heard dozens of stories of guys falling for girls after a one night stand or a couple of dates and the bitch never called back or never showed and then it was found out that she was fucking another guy when she sid she would call and and and...
Sound familiar?
The debate about the water is a flawless analogy for the discussion about feminism. Hopper is pointing out that all the freshwater sources you're talking about actually come from the ocean. Some of you continue to argue with him. He says over and over that he knows we use rivers and lakes and underground aquifers and pipes and everything - but that all the water in those places and systems COMES FROM THE OCEAN and he's right - without rain, all those sources would dry up over time, and the rain comes from the ocean water. I do not understand why there's any argument. Regarding shortages, there is no reason for there to be any other than lack of infrastructure. Everyone could have adequate water all the time if we engineered and implemented the system correctly.
Regarding feminism and the analogy - why are you all mad at him for these little details? He is pointing out that the founders of the movement - who also founded the gay rights movement and many others - are working to alter human society so they can better control the masses. He never says anywhere that any one person who follows the stated cause is bad or wrong.
You are all debating the distraction points - precisely what they want you to do. While we - we being the vast majority with our different experiences and views - fight amongst ourselves about feminism and gay rights and racism and immigration and climate change, they make subtle changes to laws and practices to chip away at your individual freedoms and limit your potential.
The fact that it is so hard to get a few people in a thread to focus on that instead of getting butt hurt about differences in views on who's taking advantage of who in a sex for pay scenario if proof that they're damned good at what they do.
MarvelGirl
08-09-2009, 03:03 PM
if you dont have one night stands then how can you possibly know that other women enjoy it? If they enjoy sex just for the sex then they would be happy with a dildo, no asshole who is only using them for a free toy necessary...
Honestly i think it is these women who claim to enjoy one night stands that are the reason men have such a huge sense of sexual entitlement.
I enjoy one night stands, I'm offended by your comment. I would not be "just as happy with a dildo" and I don't give a shit if they think of me as a "free toy". I am there for ME, not them.
xdamage
08-09-2009, 03:24 PM
The debate about the water is a flawless analogy for the discussion about feminism. Hopper is pointing out that all the freshwater sources you're talking about actually come from the ocean. Some of you continue to argue with him. He says over and over that he knows we use rivers and lakes and underground aquifers and pipes and everything - but that all the water in those places and systems COMES FROM THE OCEAN and he's right - without rain, all those sources would dry up over time, and the rain comes from the ocean water. I do not understand why there's any argument. Regarding shortages, there is no reason for there to be any other than lack of infrastructure. Everyone could have adequate water all the time if we engineered and implemented the system correctly.
That discussion was in regard to the population explosion issue which somehow ended up with some implication that population control is a feminist plot. However no it remains true that all of the engineering in the world won't solve the following case:
1.) Populating right up to the point where water sources are stretched to the bare minimum needed to keep everyone alive.
2.) A drought.*
A controlled population requires that the resources be adequate to also survive the inevitable hard times. It would apply to food shortages, extended periods of cold, sudden loss of food sources, and other scenarios. In some countries people just die en-mass because they are not controlled and populate right up to the point where the society is ready to topple.
Not sure why population control is an issue though; it is not a crisis in our country but in some it was/rapidly is becoming one in other parts of the world and I'd say Hopper is painting the situation all white (just the reverse extreme of painting it all black) by dismissing that populations cannot grow indefinitely, and that it is positive matter when societies realize this and find things to do besides just having more off spring (like working on that technology that does improve their lives).
* Note it is not a solution to say improve the technology - that is a circular argument since one can just continue to add to the population exceeding the current technical capabilities. And besides, there is no survival benefit anyway. Survivability in evolution is not about quantity of beings. It is about longevity of the genes.
yoda57us
08-09-2009, 03:29 PM
This thread has not deteriorated into name calling as "dream girls" did. There is still an exchange of ideas. What are you a Nazi? :P
Well at least there is no name calling...
Almost Jaded
08-09-2009, 03:40 PM
I'm merely pointing out - to him here as well as via PM and to everyone else here only - that Hopper is doing himself and everyone here some disfavor by continuing to debate the surface issues; the underlying "plot" is the real issue.
i.e., feminism and other causes aren't bad in that many of the purposes they purportedly promote (sorry, couldn't resist) are well and fine insofar as they go, but the people and groups that started them and continue to manipulate them do not have those interests in mind in the long term.
If we - as the worlds general population, really - can recognize this and come to a mind without the "factionizing", we can create a better world without subjugating our greater good and best interests to those who seek to do just that.
Let's say that "they" seek to control the masses by controlling the food and water distribution. "They" start a "water comes from the ocean" argument and a "water comes from freshwater supplies" argument, and while everyone is arguing about it they quietly change the laws dictating how the water is distributed for crop growth under the guise of trying to be fair to both sides.
Make sense? That's EXACTLY what's going on with these other issues. If they can split the proletariat by keeping them at odds with each other over all these issues - distractions - they can quietly erode the foundations that allow the masses to influence their rulers and the elite that stand behind them (who put them in power in the first place, because the masses were busy arguing about "the issues" that weren't really issues until the elite made them so).
Its not some shady fringe conspiracy theory, it's a tried and true method used for thousands of years, and if you really pay attention, is being implemented more effectively than ever right now.
Almost Jaded
08-09-2009, 03:44 PM
And MarvelGirl, be careful with comments like that. I appreciate what you said in the context of this discussion, but now MissMynxx wants you and I to go out sometime, LMAO.
mediocrity
08-09-2009, 04:12 PM
You like watching people make fools of themselves?
I don't think she is making a fool of herself. I think she is being passionate about something it seems she has experience.
There's a couple of other things I wanted to quote but for some reason it wouldn't let me; I'll have to recall as best I can the points I wanted to address.
I seem to remember reading something about a marriage with no children being pointless. I, myself, do not ever want any children, but I would like to get remarried one day. Why? Because children don't define a relationship. You don't have to have children to be a family, or to publicly declare and celebrate your union with a wedding. Are you saying that since I don't want children, I shouldn't getting married?
I also have a huge issue with the constant referrance to women and sex with them plainly as "pussy" and always have. I don't sit there saying, "Wow I could really use some cock" or "Cock should be free.". Maybe it's because I don't have sex with a body part, but with a human. And it most certainly has to be a human I like and am attracted to. It generates an image in my head as guys thinking of a woman just as a warm, wet place to stick their penis. Sometimes it truly baffles me at the lack of standards- not saying you specifically Hopper, but the lack of standards I have read on this board.
MarvelGirl said something about liking one night stands and hey, I am all for that. I think when both parties have the same expectation it can be a great thing. For example: Right before I met R, I was in a sort of FB relationship. When we got together, he'd act like my boyfriend in public, we would come home, have sex and get together the next time. Now he has moved across the country and I'm moving to Tx. We are still great friends, and there was no hurt or drama about either one of our deartures.
The reason I recount that anecdote is it is a situation, like a one night stand, where if both parties hadn't been completely aware of the situation, it could have resulted in someone geting hurt or misunderstood, or feeling used. I can see where LM is coming from- sometimes both parties are not completely clear and the girl ends up feeling like a used sex toy. I think women in general feel more emotional about sex; there is the old saying "Men give love to get sex, and women give sex to get love". Not saying it's an absolute; but it does ring true a LOT.
I guess going back to the original point of whether prostitution should be legal, my answer is yes. Sure, there will always be girls forced into it, and druggies just sucking dick to pay for a crack rock. But there are also a lot of elegant women who use it as a stepping stone just like stripping; to help finance a greater good. And, as with dancing, I think it takes a certain type of personality to come out the other side ok.
I hope that came across in the way I intended it to. I'll cruise through the thread and see if I missed anything. Thought the water supply argument was moot.;)
I doubt she knows the difference. :D
http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10063/STFU-Cookie-monster.jpg
xdamage
08-09-2009, 04:59 PM
I seem to remember reading something about a marriage with no children being pointless. I, myself, do not ever want any children, but I would like to get remarried one day. Why? Because children don't define a relationship. You don't have to have children to be a family, or to publicly declare and celebrate your union with a wedding. Are you saying that since I don't want children, I shouldn't getting married?
http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10063/STFU-Cookie-monster.jpg
If that came up it is rather limited view of the possibilities.
For Hopper -
Suppose a woman decided to have no kids, instead devoting her life to a career, say medical research which consumed much of her time, and as a result of her efforts, a cure is found for a common child hood ailment.
Which would have benefited society and human genes more? Had she stayed at home and raised children during those years, or chosen her dream path as a career oriented person?
It is obvious that if I put male into the same what-if nobody could argue that it's simplistic to suggest that the only possible path in life is to breed and that it is the highest possible calling. Even animals breed with no thought given.
It just seems to me that especially now, the world's population does not need further bolstering. The free time, leisure, access to information, opportunities have opened up new possibilities for people to purse paths that do not have them directly re-contributing to the gene pool, but that doesn't mean that what the are choosing is not helping our genes to survive. Stranger evolutionary strategies have happened and even stranger still could.
lmiller22134
08-09-2009, 06:40 PM
lmiller - You are a woman. When another woman has an experience good or bad, you share with each other. You're more selective of what you share with your guy friends. Experiences like that fall into the "girl talk" category. Guys act differently, but believe it or not - guys talk to their closest friends about this stuff, too. And you know what? I've heard dozens of stories of guys falling for girls after a one night stand or a couple of dates and the bitch never called back or never showed and then it was found out that she was fucking another guy when she sid she would call and and and...
Sound familiar?
The debate about the water is a flawless analogy for the discussion about feminism. Hopper is pointing out that all the freshwater sources you're talking about actually come from the ocean. Some of you continue to argue with him. He says over and over that he knows we use rivers and lakes and underground aquifers and pipes and everything - but that all the water in those places and systems COMES FROM THE OCEAN and he's right - without rain, all those sources would dry up over time, and the rain comes from the ocean water. I do not understand why there's any argument. Regarding shortages, there is no reason for there to be any other than lack of infrastructure. Everyone could have adequate water all the time if we engineered and implemented the system correctly.
Regarding feminism and the analogy - why are you all mad at him for these little details? He is pointing out that the founders of the movement - who also founded the gay rights movement and many others - are working to alter human society so they can better control the masses. He never says anywhere that any one person who follows the stated cause is bad or wrong.
You are all debating the distraction points - precisely what they want you to do. While we - we being the vast majority with our different experiences and views - fight amongst ourselves about feminism and gay rights and racism and immigration and climate change, they make subtle changes to laws and practices to chip away at your individual freedoms and limit your potential.
The fact that it is so hard to get a few people in a thread to focus on that instead of getting butt hurt about differences in views on who's taking advantage of who in a sex for pay scenario if proof that they're damned good at what they do.
Nah, guys talk to me about stuff, but when its girl trouble its usually concerning a girl they have been dating for a while. i never hear any man complain about having a one night stand and the girl never seeing them again. Usually I guess girls WANT to see the guy where as the guy doesnt want to see the girl (in which case i have to ask why did you fuck her in the first place then?). I guess i see prostitution as paying to not be that obnoxious girl who keeps bugging you when all you wanted was a toy for a night. Its a fair trade off in that case, but in casual one night stands at least one party usually is doing it because they want to see that person again.
lmiller22134
08-09-2009, 06:41 PM
I enjoy one night stands, I'm offended by your comment. I would not be "just as happy with a dildo" and I don't give a shit if they think of me as a "free toy". I am there for ME, not them.
If you enjoy one night stands then why not just be a prostitute? i find it funny when strippers who say they dont do extras say they like one night stands...like you wont suck a guys dick for 500 bucks but you'll do a "hot" one who most likely is a complete asshole, for free? Honestly id rather just be a hooker, at least my clients wont have as much of a superiority complex and will be more grateful that im there than some douchebag who can magically get laid because he looks "hot" and sees me as just one of many easy conquests. Makes no sense to me. not trying to start a fight I just dont understand how any stripper would be into one night stands. I at least think I am worth a little more than that.
Elvia
08-09-2009, 06:55 PM
^^^ I don't see what's not to understand...of course someone would prefer to have sex with someone they find attractive for free than get paid to have sex with someone they don't. That seems like a no brainer.
You know what I find funny? When sex workers judge each other for their private sex lives. Never understood that one.
What makes you think that every man who would enjoy a one night stand is an "asshole?" Sounds like you're projecting your own negative experiences on everyone else. I'm sorry if someone abused you, but don't hang your issues on her. Your past abuse and her current sex life are not the same thing. Sorry.
lmiller22134
08-09-2009, 07:44 PM
^^^ I don't see what's not to understand...of course someone would prefer to have sex with someone they find attractive for free than get paid to have sex with someone they don't. That seems like a no brainer.
You know what I find funny? When sex workers judge each other for their private sex lives. Never understood that one.
What makes you think that every man who would enjoy a one night stand is an "asshole?" Sounds like you're projecting your own negative experiences on everyone else. I'm sorry if someone abused you, but don't hang your issues on her. Your past abuse and her current sex life are not the same thing. Sorry.
blah i just dont get how you can find a guy who doeasnt want anything to do with you attractive. a one night stand implies that you see that person for one night and then they disappear forever. Have some respect for yourself and at least charge if youre going to let yourself be used like that! It isnt a no brainer for me I guess because the thought of fucking an asshole, for free at that, is absolutely atrocious.
Why would a nice guy enjoy a one night stand? Because he enjoys fucking strangers who hes never going to see again? Doesnt sound like fun for me. If i like someone enough to fuck them for free then i definitely like them enough to want to be at least very good friends with them. I just dont see how anyone with a heart could possibly take part in a one night stand and be okay with it.
MarvelGirl
08-09-2009, 08:06 PM
If you enjoy one night stands then why not just be a prostitute? i find it funny when strippers who say they dont do extras say they like one night stands...like you wont suck a guys dick for 500 bucks but you'll do a "hot" one who most likely is a complete asshole, for free? Honestly id rather just be a hooker, at least my clients wont have as much of a superiority complex and will be more grateful that im there than some douchebag who can magically get laid because he looks "hot" and sees me as just one of many easy conquests. Makes no sense to me. not trying to start a fight I just dont understand how any stripper would be into one night stands. I at least think I am worth a little more than that.
Prostitutes have sex with morbidly obese elderly men. When I want to have fun sex I find an extremely well built, attractive young man. If you can't see the difference between the two than I can't help you.
I personally don't understand why in 2009 I have to justify having a sex drive to a random woman on the internet who is offended by what I do with MY body on MY time.
You want to get paid every time someone touches you, good for you. I have no desire to live that kind of life.
*oh, and by the way I've been a hooker. Yes, I have. I don't enjoy having sex with clients because they are physically unattractive and lousy in bed 99% of the time.
I still enjoy sex with attractive people though, if you can't, then maybe you're just damaged and need some therapy.
MarvelGirl
08-09-2009, 08:09 PM
You know what I find funny? When sex workers judge each other for their private sex lives. Never understood that one.
Neither do I. When I see this shit, I'm actually glad that there is stereotype. At least other people sling as much mud at her for being a whore as she's slinging at me right now.
Cyril
08-09-2009, 08:30 PM
You want to get paid every time someone touches you, good for you. I have no desire to live that kind of life.
This statement reflects the true womanhood.
Hopper
08-10-2009, 04:18 AM
Name the conspirators.
The elite, the richest men. Names aren't important for the purpose of this discussion, we just need to recognise the concepts involved.
Now you're just choosing to ignore that there are reasons why females feel oppressed and therefore are drawn to a movement.
There is no reason why women would not be paid equal for the same work, all things being equal.
Again, apparently you've just chosen to forget the world as it was just recently here (I mean even going back just a handful of generations).
Or I remember differently. Or it's beside the point when it comes to political agendas.
They are statistically physically weaker and smaller, but not less intelligent. The word intelligent is a simple word for a vastly complex set of abilities and it's being shown that statistically they have greater abilities in some areas, we males greater in some, but the difference are statistically minor.
I said if, because in your analogy a species of inferior intelligence stood for women.
But no you're conclusion is what I 100% disagree with, and is what I hope changes. I'll add that below...
Well it follows from your analogy.
Some societies do outright condone out and our own was far too tolerant of it, and still is in parts of the USA.
Beating and enslaving women? We are not talking about other societies.
Your final conclusion though which essentially is -
"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. " - Hopper
Is what I completely disagree with and is at the core of why so many females are backing feminism. It is also at the core of why people revolt against oppressive governments. Why they formed unions against oppressive employers. I'm not saying they can't come to have unrealistic expectations, even the oppressed can become corrupt, but power corrupts and holding the upper hand, for whatever reasons (including the genetic lottery) does not give us a God given right to oppress. It is a choice. And if men choose to use their greater physical strength to oppress then they should hardly be surprised that the oppressed will want to fight back.
That said there is a parallel to another thread here. Even the oppressed can come to want only the benefits, and not the costs. I am 100% in favor of equal treatment of females, but it is true that it is complicated and possible for a movement to go on beyond fighting oppression and into it's own kind of corrupt self-serving death spiral. I see some signs of that but it's not all or nothing yet either.
I have already argued that women are not oppressed by working at home. Women and men, as you admitted, are not equal (in the sense that they are different to men, not that they are inferior), so why should they be treated equally and why would they wish to be?
It's pointless fighting oppresssion if you do not observe the principles of liberty. Feminists want to impose "social justice" by expanding government control of individuals. In other words, their idea of preserving freedom and equality is to put a minority (the government) in charge of everyone else's actions.
The truth is that no society in which the people are just to one another without being made to, out of personal ethics, is worth having. You can't fix it with legislation. That just puts a few unjust people in charge of all the others.
There is a story from ancient Greece about a ruler who visitted another ruler and asked him what is the most effective means of imposing tyranny. The other ruler took his guest out to a wheat field, drew his sword and swung it horizontally through the tops of the stalks of wheat closest to him, so that they were all of equal height.
Hopper
08-10-2009, 04:24 AM
The earth is some 4.5 billion years old... some of the resources of concern formed over hundreds of millions of years; some just hundreds of thousands, but that our guesses as to when resources would run out have been incorrect over the last 100 or not proof that there is no issue.
As well as being very old, the earth very big. A planet in fact.
Don't confuse getting the specifics details right over the short term with still being able to see a significant looming pattern over the long term. I see similarities to your feminism arguments where you seem to just ignore the long term historical patterns and say well "I'm okay in my specific situation, so there is no problem" This is a common short sightedness, confusing our personal situation with the bigger long term picture that affects so many others and explains their actions and points of view, if we'd only listen.
Feminism (second wave) only appeared a short time ago. Women reallly were all doing okay by then, in terms of progress at least. The feminists also exaggerate how bad it was before that. As I said, feminists also aggravate prejudices by polarising society and introducing unnecessary gender enmity.
Hopper
08-10-2009, 04:30 AM
Or in our country, from dams, reservoirs and pipelines because the natural resources were not adequate to support our populations in the places and lifestyle they want.
What people forget in the USA is that even technologically savy nations are not immune from droughts, essentially short term changes in availability of a recyclable resource.
In those places where the population density pushes the limits of their resources, they are more likely to suffer dramatically when a drought cycle occurs, and they do occur, even here in the USA.
Both in CA and PA we've been through drought cycles. Our technology, relatively low population density (allowing us to have much spare capacity), and forced reduction in water use allowed us to live through it comfortably.
In other nations where they were too fruitful and multiplied without any overall agreement to limit their populations, where they populated right up to what the environment would support, are effected much worse when a drought occurs. And yes Hopper is right such massive die offs and pain limits population growth, but that doesn't mean the people in our country should be so stupid as to reproduce without limits putting ourselves in the same eventual position.
The fact is I think Hopper is being a bit silly as he is arguing both that people should not be concerned about population explosions, and also that people self limit their population because of resource limits. He is arguing it both ways and not connecting the final dot between these points. It's precisely because we are concerned about matters like our life style, resource limits and wanting something in reserve in case of crisis, that we limit our population and that is arguably a wise choice, not some feminist evil plot.
I argued that populations in areas of scarcity, and their use of such resources, do not reach the proportions where it causes catastrophe - it slows down before it happens. People can migrate don't forget. Catastrophes are due to natural causes which nobody can predict, or which they are too apathetic to avoid.
I'm not arguing both ways, I am arguing that population explosions don't happen.
Hopper
08-10-2009, 04:36 AM
I doubt it. Sexism and racism exist in varying degrees from mild to extremes. There is no point in pretending not. Often people are unaware of their own degree or are even proud of it. Most people don't think they are racists or sexists yet if you ask other races or sexes they may see it very differently. Often racists and sexists have some valid points even, maybe some bad experiences, but in the extreme cases the valid points are intermixed with hate for the sake of hate.
Nothing to be done about that but take the heat of facing extremism head on. If everyone tippy-toed around the extremists then extreme views would thrive and the world would be a worse place for it.
And then you have extreme and ideologically-based definitions of racism and sexism.
People will always have offensive prejudices. It's no big deal, adults can deal with mere name-calling and hostility. You just take your business elsewhere. One of the first things kids learn.
Most extremists are ignored. To gain wide supoprt, they must form clever popular front movements. Like radical feminists do.
Hopper
08-10-2009, 04:44 AM
This is a good time to tie into your pro-union beliefs...
I think I'd say it differently then you...
1.) Women who were fed up started it (yes well that is the way it works, same reasons unions form, which you are in favor of).
2.) Some of the loudest members now may well be sexists whose primary agenda is male hatred, but...
3.) Many are moderates, well reasoned, and just want a fair share in life.
BTW do you see any parallels here to the formation of unions? Like maybe they were started because there were actual oppressive behaviors that warranted some people stepping up, out of anger even, and doing something about it? But that the results are similar? Some follow out of dramatic emotions possibly no longer warranted, while most just follow along because the feel it is of benefit to them to keep employers (or in this case the patriarchy) regulated.
I just warn again though about throwing out the baby with the bath water and these all or nothing povs. I have the same opinion of feminism I have of unions. It's not all bad. The general idea is good. There are radicals who I think are in it for the wrong reasons. Just like unions, or any groups of people, even feminists could want want want with no limits ... checks and balances are needed. I have no problem with males pushing back and checking and balancing, just with the complete dismissal of feminism as an entirely bad thing because their brains can't cope with a fuzzy gray mix of positives and negatives.
The radical feminists dominate the public mind. Modren feminism IS radical. So-called mainstream feminsim is just the acceptable public face of feminism, a means of getting wide support for a covert radical agenda. Even that has the same logical conclusions as the core, radical ideology of which it is a part. Softly softly catchy monkey.
There are prejucices and misconceptions about women, but feminists have defined the debate so that it is not merely about those. They are concerned about political ideology, not enlightenned thought.
I can deal with "fuzzy positives and negatives", but feminists have polarised the issue wrongly, according to their false ideology.
Hopper
08-10-2009, 04:53 AM
Holy shit you seriously think its not possible to ever have a water shortage? OMG. To live in your ignorant world....
It's possible, but whether we do largely depends on adequate supply facitlites. There are two possible causes: natural (unavailability) and mismanagement of what is available. Good management can even mitigate the severity of natural shortages.
No I think you're one because you say sex should be free, not because you dont visit hookers. NOTHING in life is free, EVER, and saying that something HAS to be free for a specific gender is absolutely degrading to the people expected to do the free action.
I never said it should be free. How many times do I have to say this to myself? I don't know, how many times? I don't know...
And apparently some other girls here disagree with you on that point.
Yesh sure of course they get something out of it, a VD, depression, lowering of the self esteem...you are absolutely insane and delusional if you think women enjoy having one night stands. I will never understand how men enjoy it...guess they don't have a heart. If you like someone enough to have sex with them for absolutely NOTHING, wouldnt that mean that you want to see them again? Even hookers have regulars, which shows even some MEN dont like one night stands.
Women do get physical enjoyment out of sex,and if it's a one-night-satand with a nice guy, one they like, then they enjoy it in other ways too. They are some of the things you said you wanted in return for it. Some girsl want sex with certain guys without commitment.
Other than that, there will always be jerks who use women and it is up to the woman to be smart enough to look after her own interests. Or at least accept the risks involved with sex with men she doesn't know inorder to get what she wants from it.
I think you are confusing women who want one night stands and women who want more but don't get it, because they give it away too easily.
Hopper
08-10-2009, 05:07 AM
That discussion was in regard to the population explosion issue which somehow ended up with some implication that population control is a feminist plot. However no it remains true that all of the engineering in the world won't solve the following case:
1.) Populating right up to the point where water sources are stretched to the bare minimum needed to keep everyone alive.
2.) A drought.*
A controlled population requires that the resources be adequate to also survive the inevitable hard times. It would apply to food shortages, extended periods of cold, sudden loss of food sources, and other scenarios. In some countries people just die en-mass because they are not controlled and populate right up to the point where the society is ready to topple.
Not sure why population control is an issue though; it is not a crisis in our country but in some it was/rapidly is becoming one in other parts of the world and I'd say Hopper is painting the situation all white (just the reverse extreme of painting it all black) by dismissing that populations cannot grow indefinitely, and that it is positive matter when societies realize this and find things to do besides just having more off spring (like working on that technology that does improve their lives).
* Note it is not a solution to say improve the technology - that is a circular argument since one can just continue to add to the population exceeding the current technical capabilities. And besides, there is no survival benefit anyway. Survivability in evolution is not about quantity of beings. It is about longevity of the genes.
Most famines and other shortages in history can be traced to the political-economic system rather than natural causes. Problems in undeveloped countries are due not to overpopulation, but mismanagement of production. They are undersupplied, not overpopulated.
Hopper
08-10-2009, 05:20 AM
I'm merely pointing out - to him here as well as via PM and to everyone else here only - that Hopper is doing himself and everyone here some disfavor by continuing to debate the surface issues; the underlying "plot" is the real issue.
i.e., feminism and other causes aren't bad in that many of the purposes they purportedly promote (sorry, couldn't resist) are well and fine insofar as they go, but the people and groups that started them and continue to manipulate them do not have those interests in mind in the long term.
If we - as the worlds general population, really - can recognize this and come to a mind without the "factionizing", we can create a better world without subjugating our greater good and best interests to those who seek to do just that.
Let's say that "they" seek to control the masses by controlling the food and water distribution. "They" start a "water comes from the ocean" argument and a "water comes from freshwater supplies" argument, and while everyone is arguing about it they quietly change the laws dictating how the water is distributed for crop growth under the guise of trying to be fair to both sides.
Make sense? That's EXACTLY what's going on with these other issues. If they can split the proletariat by keeping them at odds with each other over all these issues - distractions - they can quietly erode the foundations that allow the masses to influence their rulers and the elite that stand behind them (who put them in power in the first place, because the masses were busy arguing about "the issues" that weren't really issues until the elite made them so).
Its not some shady fringe conspiracy theory, it's a tried and true method used for thousands of years, and if you really pay attention, is being implemented more effectively than ever right now.
Divide and conquer. The reason left-wing ideologies are based on class divisions (economic, race, sex, religion etc).
Slow down, Chuck, you're goin' too fast for 'em. They're gonna break down!
Yes it is most important to expose what these elites are actually doing. But they do it with such subterfuge that it is also necessary to explain why what they are doing and saying is wrong. For example, you cannot say that the global warming fraud is a political deception and that the political agenda premised on it is false unless you expose the premise as false and deceptive. Correct principles (e.g. sexual in the case of this thread) must be explained in order to show why the enemies of those principles are a threat. Or else we are not aware that we have anything to defend or that anyone is attacking it.
The two issues go hand in hand.
Hopper
08-10-2009, 05:30 AM
I don't think she is making a fool of herself. I think she is being passionate about something it seems she has experience.
I thought she was drunk LOL.
There's a couple of other things I wanted to quote but for some reason it wouldn't let me; I'll have to recall as best I can the points I wanted to address.
I seem to remember reading something about a marriage with no children being pointless. I, myself, do not ever want any children, but I would like to get remarried one day. Why? Because children don't define a relationship. You don't have to have children to be a family, or to publicly declare and celebrate your union with a wedding. Are you saying that since I don't want children, I shouldn't getting married?
I'm not saying you should do anything. But the purpose of marriage is to have a family. Many couples choose not to and marry just because they are committed to one another. Some couples marry and can't reproduce yet still keep their vows. (But they didn't plan it that way.) I am talking abot what most people do, and the most obvious thing to do, not what any one person should do.
I also have a huge issue with the constant referrance to women and sex with them plainly as "pussy" and always have. I don't sit there saying, "Wow I could really use some cock" or "Cock should be free.". Maybe it's because I don't have sex with a body part, but with a human. And it most certainly has to be a human I like and am attracted to. It generates an image in my head as guys thinking of a woman just as a warm, wet place to stick their penis. Sometimes it truly baffles me at the lack of standards- not saying you specifically Hopper, but the lack of standards I have read on this board.
I don't like the word "pussy" either (though I don't mind "cock"). I have only used it here in response to others who used it. However, I don't think men generally think of just a woman's genitals when they say they want pussy. They like all the other parts and the whole package. Pussy is where attraction to the rest of her naturally leads him.
MarvelGirl said something about liking one night stands and hey, I am all for that. I think when both parties have the same expectation it can be a great thing. For example: Right before I met R, I was in a sort of FB relationship. When we got together, he'd act like my boyfriend in public, we would come home, have sex and get together the next time. Now he has moved across the country and I'm moving to Tx. We are still great friends, and there was no hurt or drama about either one of our deartures.
The reason I recount that anecdote is it is a situation, like a one night stand, where if both parties hadn't been completely aware of the situation, it could have resulted in someone geting hurt or misunderstood, or feeling used. I can see where LM is coming from- sometimes both parties are not completely clear and the girl ends up feeling like a used sex toy. I think women in general feel more emotional about sex; there is the old saying "Men give love to get sex, and women give sex to get love". Not saying it's an absolute; but it does ring true a LOT.
I guess going back to the original point of whether prostitution should be legal, my answer is yes. Sure, there will always be girls forced into it, and druggies just sucking dick to pay for a crack rock. But there are also a lot of elegant women who use it as a stepping stone just like stripping; to help finance a greater good. And, as with dancing, I think it takes a certain type of personality to come out the other side ok.
I hope that came across in the way I intended it to. I'll cruise through the thread and see if I missed anything. Thought the water supply argument was moot.;)
http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10063/STFU-Cookie-monster.jpg
Hopper
08-10-2009, 05:37 AM
If that came up it is rather limited view of the possibilities.
For Hopper -
Suppose a woman decided to have no kids, instead devoting her life to a career, say medical research which consumed much of her time, and as a result of her efforts, a cure is found for a common child hood ailment.
Which would have benefited society and human genes more? Had she stayed at home and raised children during those years, or chosen her dream path as a career oriented person?
It is obvious that if I put male into the same what-if nobody could argue that it's simplistic to suggest that the only possible path in life is to breed and that it is the highest possible calling. Even animals breed with no thought given.
It just seems to me that especially now, the world's population does not need further bolstering. The free time, leisure, access to information, opportunities have opened up new possibilities for people to purse paths that do not have them directly re-contributing to the gene pool, but that doesn't mean that what the are choosing is not helping our genes to survive. Stranger evolutionary strategies have happened and even stranger still could.
Already said that no woman with a genuine inclination should be held back. Already said that that is not most women or most men either (no matter how much leiseure time they have - haven't you noticed?).
"Breeding" is a high calling, even amongst animals and more so amongst us higher ones. You are trying to reduce it to a physical act. That's what makes your hypothetical career woman's calling high also.
Put another record on.
Hopper
08-10-2009, 05:43 AM
If you enjoy one night stands then why not just be a prostitute? i find it funny when strippers who say they dont do extras say they like one night stands...like you wont suck a guys dick for 500 bucks but you'll do a "hot" one who most likely is a complete asshole, for free? Honestly id rather just be a hooker, at least my clients wont have as much of a superiority complex and will be more grateful that im there than some douchebag who can magically get laid because he looks "hot" and sees me as just one of many easy conquests. Makes no sense to me. not trying to start a fight I just dont understand how any stripper would be into one night stands. I at least think I am worth a little more than that.
I'd like to know why a girl who is against uncommitted sex is a stripper, since the job of a stripper is to act out the male fantasy of free sex.