50calibre SirShymex

1 step closer to polyandry? LoL

TV01:

I don't make the news, just comment on it.
Feminism demands that different things - males and female - be treated exactly the same way, hence women adopting male behavour - whilst regrettably losing female virtue. Part of the liberal ideology that pervades culture and most thinking in the west these days.

Feminism does not mandate anyone to behave in a certain way. Simply calls for equal respect and considerations to both gender.

You're shocked because some women now can boldly take on a lover and dispose him later one just like them dudes used to do with call girls.

If feminism is to blame here,who's to blame for men patronizing prostitutes? Afterall aren't those call girls servicing the men doing away with these supposed virtues that only women are supposed to have?

Perhaps, but was it mainstreamed, normalised, seen as a good thing? What is driving this form of that particular habit ?What kind of woman do you see as needing to pay for sex? "Kini big deal" is a rather simplistic response

Neither was female prostitution normalized or seen as a good thing.
No matter how common male and female prostitution becomes,neither will ever be normalized or seen as a good thing.

We are talking about male prostitution here. Let's not turn it around and make it all the fault of the buyers only. The sellers have a share of the blame. Do you blame feminism for these young men who have decided to sell their bodies for money?

What kind of women would need to pay for sex?
Let's see:

*Very busy and unable to sustain a relationship kind of women.
*Serially heartbroken and not interested in trying again kind of women.
*adventurous women.bored with one partner easily
*neglected and sexually starved wives

I could go on.

LordReed:
50calibre SirShymex

1 step closer to polyandry? LoL

You're only kidding yourself.

Women paying men for se*x is no new things, there male strippers & escorts just as there are female.

However most of the time, it's the old, ugly & rich women who would have to resort to such services. Any attractive woman regardless of age, can walk into a bar & pick the numbers of multiple guys who will willingly have se*x with her for free, no strings attached (That's what guys want anyway)... Which further buttress my point that polyandry will be survival of the fittest or rather the prettiest.

50calibre:


You're only kidding yourself.

Women paying men for se*x is no new things, there male strippers & escorts just as there are female.

However most of the time, it's the old, ugly & rich women who would have to resort to such services. Any attractive woman regardless of age, can walk into a bar & pick the numbers of multiple guys who will willingly have se*x with her for free, no strings attached (That's what guys want anyway)... Which further buttress my point that polyandry will be survival of the fittest or rather the prettiest.

You really seem to like burying your head in the sand. You are seeing the evidence of women using economic power to get what they want and you are still holding on to the notion that all it takes is a pretty face. Who is kidding himself here?

We mention feminism and some people come rushing in to express themselves, later them go say na we dey pursue them around NL with feminism.

It's alright

cococandy:

Feminism does not mandate anyone to behave in a certain way. Simply calls for equal respect and considerations to both gender.

Possibly in the distant past. These days it's more about female privilege and it's flip side - forcing restraints on men

cococandy:

You're shocked because some women now can boldly take on a lover and dispose him later one just like them dudes used to do with call girls.

No. They could always do that. The interesting point is that they are paying for something that the sexual market place in it's natural form would suggest they should be paid for.

Men don't typically consider call-girls lovers. they pay for sex because they can't get it, or they can't get it at the higher level of the courtesan they patronise. And in some instance, it may be convenience or deviancy.

cococandy:

If feminism is to blame here,who's to blame for men patronizing prostitutes? Afterall aren't those call girls servicing the men doing away with these supposed virtues that only women are supposed to have?

Men paying for sex - although morally wrong - is how the sexual market place should work when the right value is placed on men and women. One of feminisms pushes is for unrestrained and unashamed sexual license for women. This has changed the market dynamic cheapening sex with women.

It also means women are objectified now more than ever - by both men and women. Think of 10 random high profile women - now think about what they are selling.

cococandy:

Neither was female prostitution normalized or seen as a good thing.
No matter how common male and female prostitution becomes,neither will ever be normalized or seen as a good thing.

It's not so much about the moral aspect - as important as that may be - it's about the dynamics, and how that will change interactions between men and women, their ability to form long-term relationships (read marriage), and most of all the procreative outcomes.

cococandy:

We are talking about male prostitution here. Let's not turn it around and make it all the fault of the buyers only. The sellers have a share of the blame. Do you blame feminism for these young men who have decided to sell their bodies for money?

It's not about male prostitution, it's about women paying for sex. It's not about blame, it's about the attendant impact on male-female relationships, and outcomes for the family and children.

Apart from gay rent boys and a minor element of sugar-mummyism, there should be no market for men selling sex if women maintained market equilibrium. Feminism and it's notions of sameness definitely did much of the heavy lifting here.

As above regards the moral aspect. My whole point being that the normal dynamics between male and female suggest women as buyers is a skewed market

Feminism has enabled the environment for this particualr form of prostitution to flourish. Think of the dempgraphic of woman we are talking about here.

cococandy:

What kind of women would need to pay for sex?
Let's see:

*Very busy and unable to sustain a relationship kind of women.
*Serially heartbroken and not interested in trying again kind of women.
*adventurous women.bored with one partner easily
*neglected and sexually starved wives

I could go on.

Please do...none of those situations would demand payment by women in a properly priced market. Think about it, what women of real quality would feel she cannot command the attention of the lover or spouse she desired without payment.

I try not to personalise things - unless I'm dissing - but let me muse. If I were paying for sex, would I stump up for what I could get without paying? Certainly not. It's been spun as empowerment, but these women are essentialluy losers. Just reasonably well-paid. They are paying for what they can't get in a free market, but they can afford in a skewed one !


TV

crackhaus:
We mention feminism and some people come rushing in to express themselves, later them go say na we dey pursue them around NL with feminism.

It's alright

Express themselves? Everytime I read some peoples posts I can hear them grunting as they furrow their brows, dribble saliva and their brain cogs turn at reverse warp speed !

TV

TV01:

Express themselves? Everytime I read some peoples posts I can hear them grunting as they furrow their brows, dribble saliva and their brain cogs turn at reverse warp speed !

TV

Lmao...

I initially typed 'rant' in that space, then deleted it and typed 'comment', then deleted that again before finally settling for 'express themselves' - at least to appear non-threatening

Girls prostitute= feminists
Boys prostitute= fault of feminists.

Na wa. Is there space anywhere in all these for the blame to go to its appropriate quarters?

That is greed and love of money causing boys to sell their bodies for money to the highest bidders?

TV01:

Possibly in the distant past. These days it's more about female privilege and it's flip side - forcing restraints on men
No. They could always do that. The interesting point is that they are paying for something that the sexual market place in it's natural form would suggest they should be paid for.

number one:

why should it be so? Except you're hanging onto the archaic and erroneous belief that men need sex more and women are only providing a service by having sex with men.
If you recognize the truth which is that both gender desire sexuall relations in as much the same way as the other, you will understand why some women who like their male counterparts will pay for sex when they can't easily get it.

Men don't typically consider call-girls lovers. they pay for sex because they can't get it, or they can't get it at the higher level of the courtesan they patronise. And in some instance, it may be convenience or deviancy.

You think these women would pay for it if they could get it easily? Who likes to waste money and time? No one:

Men paying for sex - although morally wrong - is how the sexual market place should work when the right value is placed on men and women. One of feminisms pushes is for unrestrained and unashamed sexual license for women. This has changed the market dynamic cheapening sex with women.

Refer to number one first. Then read.

If women selling their bodies for money didn't cheapen sex with women, this won't either. Typically the person who gets paid is the cheapened person in each scenario

It also means women are objectified now more than ever - by both men and women. Think of 10 random high profile women - now think about what they are selling.
It's not so much about the moral aspect - as important as that may be - it's about the dynamics, and how that will change interactions between men and women, their ability to form long-term relationships (read marriage), and most of all the procreative outcomes.

False. Female prostitution objectifies women more.it essentially says women are commodities that can be bought by the man who has money. This is just the tables turning and I'm surprised you found a way to make it about the women.
The guys are being bought for their services in these instances. They are the ones being objectified. It is the same thing as buying a vibr@tor or dildoo because the buyer doesn't want to engage in personal mess.
Rent a stud. An object. Simple.

It's not about male prostitution, it's about women paying for sex. It's not about blame, it's about the attendant impact on male-female relationships, and outcomes for the family and children.

It will not affect relationships or marriages.
People who want emotional connections will always find each other and settle down together.
This is for people who do not want that and fortunately they are not the whole population

Apart from gay rent boys and a minor element of sugar-mummyism, there should be no market for men selling sex if women maintained market equilibrium. Feminism and it's notions of sameness definitely did much of the heavy lifting here.

by maintaining market equilibrium you mean pretending she doesn't have sexual needs and hanging onto hopes and dreams that one day a man will find her desirable and want to fvck(pardon me) her?let those who can buy it buy it and spare us the stories that touch.
(Not in support of either form of prostitution)

As above regards the moral aspect. My whole point being that the normal dynamics between male and female suggest women as buyers is a skewed market

refer to number one.

Feminism has enabled the environment for this particualr form of prostitution to flourish. Think of the dempgraphic of woman we are talking about here.

What demographic of women are we talking about? They cut across all shapes and sizes. Not every woman is desirable. If she can't easily attract a sex partner what option but to rent one?
Many men today would not be having sex if they didn't have money simple because there is nothing desirable about them. this is just the same thing. Pls don't rain on the shine of these boys providing the services those women need badly.

Please do...none of those situations would demand payment by women in a properly priced market. Think about it, what women of real quality would feel she cannot command the attention of the lover or spouse she desired without payment.

Depends on what you define quality as. Not every woman measures her quality by being able to attract or command the attention of the opposite sex. Some don't even want that attention because it comes with strings attached which is probably what they are running away from.

I try not to personalise things - unless I'm dissing - but let me muse. If I were paying for sex, would I stump up for what I could get without paying? Certainly not. It's been spun as empowerment, but these women are essentialluy losers. Just reasonably well-paid. They are paying for what they can't get in a free market, but they can afford in a skewed one !


TV

agreed. No one will pay for what they can get freely.

But what you call a free market was actually the skewed one. Where a lady makes you pay for something she equally enjoyed and acts like she did you a favor too. What is more skewed than that?

Now this is the free market

LordReed:


You really seem to like burying your head in the sand. You are seeing the evidence of women using economic power to get what they want and you are still holding on to the notion that all it takes is a pretty face. Who is kidding himself here?

Lol you amaze me. Your gullibility has followed you into 2015. Speaking of economic power, who holds the greater power, men or women?

crackhaus:
We 'mention' feminism and some people come rushing in to express themselves, later them go say na we dey pursue them around NL with feminism.

It's alright

Herpity Derp Derp 'A Twerp I think I can guess which thread this comment is a continuation of. So when you manage to squeeze feminism into every nook and cranny, you're not pursuing it?

Ah, but no harm. I just couldn't resist the contradiction

50calibre:


Lol you amaze me. Your gullibility has followed you into 2015. Speaking of economic power, who holds the greater power, men or women?

LoL you throw around words which have no bearing on the discussion. What has gullibility got to do with anything? What has who has the greater power got to do with it? A woman with sufficient economic power can now "rent" a "husband" and said "husband" desires his own financial gain, contract entered and concluded.

LordReed:


LoL you throw around words which have no bearing on the discussion. What has gullibility got to do with anything? What has who has the greater power got to do with it? A woman with sufficient economic power can now "rent" a "husband" and said "husband" desires his own financial gain, contract entered and concluded.

I disagree!! It has bearing on the discussion. You gullibility in the sense that you think this sort of thing started recently.

This has been around for a long time, it's nothing new however, it is still on a very tiny scale compared to that of men. The women aren't renting a husband, they're renting a husband/boyfriend experience (if that's what they want) for a given period of time, there's a clear distinction.

Stop sounding like this is some sort of new concept which automatically puts women on equal footing with men, because it doesn't. Go look up "rent a dread" if you don't know what it is.

50calibre:


I disagree!! It has bearing on the discussion. You gullibility in the sense that you think this sort of thing started recently.

This has been around for a long time, it's nothing new however, it is still on a very tiny scale compared to that of men. The women aren't renting a husband, they're renting a husband/boyfriend experience (if that's what they want) for a given period of time, there's a clear distinction.

Stop sounding like this is some sort of new concept which automatically puts women on equal footing with men, because it doesn't. Go look up "rent a dread" if you don't know what it is.

Your gullibility statement is useless because I already showed you societies that practiced polyandry so how I'm indicating this is a new phenomenon? However the modern twist is on this because of the "business" side of it.

So you imagine that there are no men who would gladly be kept men in a male harem?

Nope I don't imagine it places women on equal footing with men. Reread my first post.

...holá Coco,

Let's not talk at cross-purposes here. We both agree that prostitution - in any form - is immoral. We also know that most forms have been extant for a very long time. Our contention isn't even about blame, degree or frequency - I'm not commenting to aportion blame to men or women - it's more about cause and effect of this particualr strain.

My point is the dynamic and the consequent affect on male/female relationships and families. I've made it repeatedly clear that my charge here is to champion Strong healthy families and a flourishing society.

And as a side note, that is why I find feminism anathema - it is harmful to that cause. I wouldn't even quibble with their desire to upend the more traditional approach to marriage, sex and relationships, it's just that they have not presented a better model, and we seen the havoc it's wreaking on homes and society, as it corrupts our current one.

Double anathema as it pervades pretty much every strata of society and even the church - hence the pletora of confused Feminians (adherents of Femninianity and worshippers of a SJW-type Christ )

cococandy:
number one:
why should it be so? Except you're hanging onto the archaic and erroneous belief that men need sex more and women are only providing a service by having sex with men.

It's not about need. I'm aware and agree that women desire and need it just as much. But two points here;

1. The biological imperative means that men pursue women for sex - ergo there is a premiunm for men to have sex with women, not the other way round

2. Women do not typically sell sex to satisfy their desires - transactional sex for women is a love of money, not horniness !

cococandy:
If you recognize the truth which is that both gender desire sexuall relations in as much the same way as the other, you will understand why some women who like their male counterparts will pay for sex when they can't easily get it. You think these women would pay for it if they could get it easily? Who likes to waste money and time? No one:

As noted above, I recognise alright. And you have recognised that "it's what they can't get" that they are "leasing", not even buying, hence making them losers.

As part of that same biological imperative, women are more selective than men. They have to be, they are more vulnerable and subject to greater risk. As such women will always find willing men - hence it's men that should be paying a premium, not women.

cococandy:

If women selling their bodies for money didn't cheapen sex with women, this won't either. Typically the person who gets paid is the cheapened person in each scenario

Big foul here...again, biology and society rarely shames or condemn men who have numerous partners. As "unequal" as it may be, slut-shaming is something only women really suffer from. Further, men always prefer women with fewer or no former lovers. And whilst women may prefer it, it is rarely a factor when choosing a mate. So again, feminism' pushing for an equalisation in sexual behaviour/norms ultimately harms women, relationships and the family.

cococandy:

False. Female prostitution objectifies women more.it essentially says women are commodities that can be bought by the man who has money. This is just the tables turning and I'm surprised you found a way to make it about the women.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but to expand my pov - objectifying sex itself hurts women more than men, whoever is buying, regardless of who is selling

cococandy:

The guys are being bought for their services in these instances. They are the ones being objectified. It is the same thing as buying a vibr@tor or dildoo because the buyer doesn't want to engage in personal mess.
Rent a stud. An object. Simple.

As above

cococandy:

It will not affect relationships or marriages.
People who want emotional connections will always find each other and settle down together.
This is for people who do not want that and fortunately they are not the whole population

And this is where my concerns lie. Even a birds-eye view will suggest objectifying women and commoditising sex will harm the relationships between the sexes and have a long-term deleterious impact on family formation.

We are already seeing this as men turn away from marriage. Legally it's a very low value proposition for men and the sex they are wired to pursue can be had for no premium. Especially if you are what we'd describe as an elite male.

Look it up, you are in the US, the dearth of "elite" black men means that many of them have several quality women. Who are ready to woo him with love, care and gifts, for just a piece of his time. What incentive does he have to get married?

A lot of the not so great women are traped as baby-mamas to different men they'd rather not have around or who don't want to commit to them. Harmful. The marriage culture is gradually eroded, which uleashes a whole host of social ills. Zero tolerance !

This whole premise fails, becaue although women as agreed, want and need sex, they want it gift wrapped in an elite male and tied with the ribbon of comittment - not as a transactional affair - that's where the likes of me come in !.

cococandy:

by maintaining market equilibrium you mean pretending she doesn't have sexual needs and hanging onto hopes and dreams that one day a man will find her desirable and want to fvck(pardon me) her?let those who can buy it buy it and spare us the stories that touch.
(Not in support of either form of prostitution)

I think I've answered this.
Additionally, the market is not simply needs and desires driven - although that is a part of it. Biological imperatives are overlaid with societal expectations (which acknowledge the BI), and they to a large part inform individual desires.

cococandy:

What demographic of women are we talking about? They cut across all shapes and sizes. Not every woman is desirable. If she can't easily attract a sex partner what option but to rent one?

Women can always attact a partner - just not neccesarily the one they desire or think they deserve - and it's not helped by cheapening or commoditising sex.

cococandy:

Many men today would not be having sex if they didn't have money simple because there is nothing desirable about them. this is just the same thing. Pls don't rain on the shine of these boys providing the services those women need badly.

You contradict yourself with the first point, if women are driven - even in part - by desire, men do not have to have money. Real players know this. Desire in women is not triggered by money alone - it's why the rugged looking jailbird had women creaming all over the internet !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2818317/Jeremy-Meeks-competition-Handsome-man-arrested-Halloween-attack-draws-instant-parallels-famous-mugshot-modeling-contract.html
Women mis-selling their desires and needs only blindsides men without understanding - for the rest, it's a source of mirth !

cococandy:

Depends on what you define quality as. Not every woman measures her quality by being able to attract or command the attention of the opposite sex. Some don't even want that attention because it comes with strings attached which is probably what they are running away from.
agreed. No one will pay for what they can get freely.

Source of mirth !

cococandy:

But what you call a free market was actually the skewed one. Where a lady makes you pay for something she equally enjoyed and acts like she did you a favor too. What is more skewed than that?
Now this is the free market

While women will exchange sex for money - for a whole host of reasons - they do not typically transact to slake their desires. They will give sex feely to the men who know what's up. But feel free to believe that women are habitual chop and cleaners. Women slut-shame other women way more than men!


Teefee

cococandy:
Girls prostitute= feminists
Boys prostitute= fault of feminists.

Na wa. Is there space anywhere in all these for the blame to go to its appropriate quarters?

That is greed and love of money causing boys to sell their bodies for money to the highest bidders?

Death to the feminists

LordReed:


Your gullibility statement is useless because I already showed you societies that practiced polyandry so how I'm indicating this is a new phenomenon? However the modern twist is on this because of the "business" side of it.

So you imagine that there are no men who would gladly be kept men in a male harem?

Nope I don't imagine it places women on equal footing with men. Reread my first post.

Nah! Not true, you didn't show me societies which practiced polyandry, I'm still urging you to give examples of such, where it's majorly practiced.

I understood your post perfectly, you're suggesting that there's some kind of paradigm shift going on where women are starting to want what men want and willing to pay to get it & I'm telling you that that business side of it has always existed on the down low.

Like I said before, Polyandry is un-feasible on many levels, it has no place in a modern society which views women differently from men. Like it or not, men & women are not & can never be the same.

A woman with multiple partners is seen as a slu*t but that can't be said of a man.

pickabeau1:


Did you read the article at all
These are career women not some old women

It happens does not mean it was getting mainstream

Is there any impact the age bracket or what the woman does for a living have on the subject matter?

Happy New Prosperous 2015

EnlightenedSoul:


Herpity Derp Derp 'A Twerp I think I can guess which thread this comment is a continuation of. So when you manage to squeeze feminism into every nook and cranny, you're not pursuing it?

Ah, but no harm. I just couldn't resist the contradiction

Err... you're only seeing a contradiction because you want to see it E-soul (can I call you that?)

You see, there ain't no contradiction because contrary to the allegation levelled against me, what I did here was 'mention feminism' in my first comment without reference to/quoting any poster.

The accusation against me is that I pursue specific posters around NL with feminism, this I didn't do here - but trust the guilty, like white on rice, to read my comment and develop a migraine from feelings of being targeted...

Or am I never again to type feminism on these boards at the risk of perpetuating your (and their) belief that I'm pursuing 'people' by doing so?


Now please remind me what 'contradiction' you saw...

bukatyne:


Is there any impact the age bracket or what the woman does for a living have on the subject matter?

Happy New Prosperous 2015

If you dont think there is a difference from old rich women having gigolos and career women of marriageable age who should be in marriages having boyfriend experiences.. Then no issue

Happy new year to you also

pickabeau1:


If you dont think there is a difference from old rich women having gigolos and career women of marriageable age who should be in marriages having boyfriend experiences.. Then no issue

Happy new year to you also

Last I remembered, everyone has freewill and power of choice.

Having a 'boyfriend experience' is wrong however it is better than actually going through the motions of getting married and not wiling to 'be married'

We read stories that touch in the family board a lot; if the men & women not willing to stay married decide to have rented girlfriend/boyfriend, sugarchildren, bed mates etc. it will make the world much better.

My only grouse would be if woman wants rented b/f and boyfriend is thinking they are in something serious and vice versa.

pickabeau1:


If you dont think there is a difference from old rich women having gigolos and career women of marriageable age who should be in marriages having boyfriend experiences.. Then no issue

Pickabeau...see you at the NL 2014 awards ceremony...you are a cert for the "Longsuffering & Patient" gong !


TV

bukatyne:


Last I remembered, everyone has freewill and power of choice.

Having a 'boyfriend experience' is wrong however it is better than actually going through the motions of getting married and not wiling to 'be married'

We read stories that touch in the family board a lot; if the men & women not willing to stay married decide to have rented girlfriend/boyfriend, sugarchildren, bed mates etc. it will make the world much better.



My only grouse would be if woman wants rented b/f and boyfriend is thinking they are in something serious and vice versa.

No problem
Its all liberty

Wait! You actually think the world wilbe better with licentious relationships, promiscuity everywhere And bed brethren....as against people working through conflicts and providing stable bedrock for kids to be raised...

okido..

TV01:


Pickabeau...see you at the NL 2014 awards ceremony...you are a cert for the "Longsuffering & Patient" gong !


TV

Lol
I'm sure there are others who I'm still a neophyte to

Interesting views so far

pickabeau1:



No problem
Its all liberty

Wait! You actually think the world wilbe better with licentious relationships, promiscuity everywhere And bed brethren....as against people working through conflicts and providing stable bedrock for kids to be raised...

okido..

Did you read that from my post?

The world will be better if everyone is good, play their part etc. etc. unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.

bukatyne:


Did you read that from my post?

The world will be better if everyone is good, play their part etc. etc. unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.

It was your post
Read the boldened part of your post i quoted

Yes we don't live in an ideal world
Does not mean we endorse deviant behaviours in the name of liberty


Your post again below

if the men & women not willing to stay married decide to have rented girlfriend/boyfriend, sugarchildren, bed mates etc. it will make the world much better.

50calibre:


Nah! Not true, you didn't show me societies which practiced polyandry, I'm still urging you to give examples of such, where it's majorly practiced.

I understood your post perfectly, you're suggesting that there's some kind of paradigm shift going on where women are starting to want what men want and willing to pay to get it & I'm telling you that that business side of it has always existed on the down low.

Like I said before, Polyandry is un-feasible on many levels, it has no place in a modern society which views women differently from men. Like it or not, men & women are not & can never be the same.

A woman with multiple partners is seen as a slu*t but that can't be said of a man.

It doesn't have have been practiced on a wide scale before it becomes acceptable to society. Homosexuality was a fringes thing up until less than 60-70years ago, yet today it is a front and center topic even gaining legality.

The paradigm shift is not in women wanting, it's in its acceptability to society. Now you have a company out in the open offering escort services for women. It is no longer hidden.

As with homosexuality time might just allow such ideas to become mainstream. The difference between men and women does not exactly extend to the basic instincts. How they achieve their desires maybe different but the desires are still basically the same.

Today's slüt may be tomorrow's Queen Bee.

pickabeau1:



It was your post
Read the boldened part of your post i quoted

Yes we don't live in an ideal world
Does not mean we endorse deviant behaviours in the name of liberty


Your post again below

Do you know the meaning of endorse?

And yes, it is better those interested in Sugar or renting things do so than marry when they are clearly not interesting in staying married.

Seen

TV01:
...holá Coco,

Let's not talk at cross-purposes here. We both agree that prostitution - in any form - is immoral. We also know that most forms have been extant for a very long time. Our contention isn't even about blame, degree or frequency - I'm not commenting to aportion blame to men or women - it's more about cause and effect of this particualr strain.

My point is the dynamic and the consequent affect on male/female relationships and families. I've made it repeatedly clear that my charge here is to champion Strong healthy families and a flourishing society.

And as a side note, that is why I find feminism anathema - it is harmful to that cause. I wouldn't even quibble with their desire to upend the more traditional approach to marriage, sex and relationships, it's just that they have not presented a better model, and we seen the havoc it's wreaking on homes and society, as it corrupts our current one.

Double anathema as it pervades pretty much every strata of society and even the church - hence the pletora of confused Feminians (adherents of Femninianity and worshippers of a SJW-type Christ )


It's not about need. I'm aware and agree that women desire and need it just as much. But two points here;

1. The biological imperative means that men pursue women for sex - ergo there is a premiunm for men to have sex with women, not the other way round

2. Women do not typically sell sex to satisfy their desires - transactional sex for women is a love of money, not horniness !


As noted above, I recognise alright. And you have recognised that "it's what they can't get" that they are "leasing", not even buying, hence making them losers.

As part of that same biological imperative, women are more selective than men. They have to be, they are more vulnerable and subject to greater risk. As such women will always find willing men - hence it's men that should be paying a premium, not women.


Big foul here...again, biology and society rarely shames or condemn men who have numerous partners. As "unequal" as it may be, slut-shaming is something only women really suffer from. Further, men always prefer women with fewer or no former lovers. And whilst women may prefer it, it is rarely a factor when choosing a mate. So again, feminism' pushing for an equalisation in sexual behaviour/norms ultimately harms women, relationships and the family.


I don't necessarily disagree with this, but to expand my pov - objectifying sex itself hurts women more than men, whoever is buying, regardless of who is selling


As above


And this is where my concerns lie. Even a birds-eye view will suggest objectifying women and commoditising sex will harm the relationships between the sexes and have a long-term deleterious impact on family formation.

We are already seeing this as men turn away from marriage. Legally it's a very low value proposition for men and the sex they are wired to pursue can be had for no premium. Especially if you are what we'd describe as an elite male.

Look it up, you are in the US, the dearth of "elite" black men means that many of them have several quality women. Who are ready to woo him with love, care and gifts, for just a piece of his time. What incentive does he have to get married?

A lot of the not so great women are traped as baby-mamas to different men they'd rather not have around or who don't want to commit to them. Harmful. The marriage culture is gradually eroded, which uleashes a whole host of social ills. Zero tolerance !

This whole premise fails, becaue although women as agreed, want and need sex, they want it gift wrapped in an elite male and tied with the ribbon of comittment - not as a transactional affair - that's where the likes of me come in !.


I think I've answered this.
Additionally, the market is not simply needs and desires driven - although that is a part of it. Biological imperatives are overlaid with societal expectations (which acknowledge the BI), and they to a large part inform individual desires.


Women can always attact a partner - just not neccesarily the one they desire or think they deserve - and it's not helped by cheapening or commoditising sex.


You contradict yourself with the first point, if women are driven - even in part - by desire, men do not have to have money. Real players know this. Desire in women is not triggered by money alone - it's why the rugged looking jailbird had women creaming all over the internet !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2818317/Jeremy-Meeks-competition-Handsome-man-arrested-Halloween-attack-draws-instant-parallels-famous-mugshot-modeling-contract.html
Women mis-selling their desires and needs only blindsides men without understanding - for the rest, it's a source of mirth !


Source of mirth !


While women will exchange sex for money - for a whole host of reasons - they do not typically transact to slake their desires. They will give sex feely to the men who know what's up. But feel free to believe that women are habitual chop and cleaners. Women slut-shame other women way more than men!


Teefee

bukatyne:


Do you know the meaning of endorse?

And yes, it is better those interested in Sugar or renting things do so than marry when they are clearly not interesting in staying married.

OK..

pickabeau1:


OK..

Ok