₦airaland Forum

coogar:
the complainant initially reported to the police that she believed ‘her drink had been spiked’. it was only after informing the police that the complainant had stayed in a room in the premier inn that had been booked for two footballers, that the police escalated the enquiry to a rape enquiry. this was only 14 minutes after taking the call and without interviewing either the complainant or the suspects.

That again is an issue; the decision to charge as rape was taken by the law authorities.
1. She cannot be held to have given informed consent, but her "belief" that her drink was spiked is given due consideration? Not too mention that there was no forensics backing up this claim? The law is too woolly, the claims too spurious, charges too arbitrary and convictions too inconsistent - why was the other guy let off?

coogar:
i think their honesty incriminated them. if they had denied sleeping with her, they wouldn't have been charged. there was no witness, no forensic trace on the victim nor the accused persons.

It was not their honesty, it was faulty - poorly formed - laws and shoddy due process. How can truth convict the innocent?

coogar:
the male sêxual response isn't different from that of the female but i doubt the law sees it that way. the law believes a woman can steal, commit murder, manslaughter, terrorist attack, etc but till this date, the law does not recognise a woman can räpe a man........so where is her sëxual responsibility?

no matter her age, she has to repeatedly say yes to the act before a man can proceed. her silence doesn't even constitute to consent. her lack of fight or not resisting doesn't mean she consented. i ask again - where did the law place her responsibility?

I see the humour, especially as I don't swim in those murky waters, but the thinking behind those laws will percolate and harm men in other areas.


TV

cococandy:
Yes that's not how rape is defined. But there are technicalities.
Would a man be considered a rapist if he makes love to his while both then are in a state of delirious wantoness?

Certainly no. And you'd be hard pressed to prove that in court.

I would agree - or at leat hope - that it would'nt get to court, but technically he has committed rape. She was in no position to give informed consent - and the same is not required from her.

cococandy:
Sensationalism at best and if not carefully taken for what it is, can prove to be distracting to the fact that there are real cases of r@pe in marriage.

As per my response to CFW, what constitutes rape in marriage has not been clearly outlined. Your example above is technically rape, yet you are saying no charges should b brought

Perhaps I have a bit of a blind spot here? As I see this as much on an attack on marriage. Marriage is still the safest - statistically proven - relationship form for women and any children they may have. Rape to be treated as a heinous crime - absolutely - but why the focus on marriage? And particularly with wooly definitions of what actually constitutes rape.

cococandy:
Oh yes TV
You're missing. Try it. she will call you daddy if she never did before

Wish wan? Stout? Hennessey, or Courvoisier? And how mush? I'm prudish and stingy. Plus I don' wanna wake the kids !


TV

...I was responding to posts yesterday when some sort of glitch happened. Anyway...

carefreewannabe:
I think it is wrong to sleep with a woman who is extremely drunk and not in her right senses but it is not necessarily rape.

That is not the prevailing thinking or concensus on what constitutes rape. In fact, that kind of utterance will have you labelled a rape apologist ! A man has to ensure there is informed (essentially competent) consent prior to the act and at every stage during it - even if he is also drunk or high. He also has to be able to prove or evidence it if any charge is made.

carefreewannabe:
And I agree that people / women should be urged to regulate their drinking and moderate their behavior when doing so instead of convicting everyone who sleeps with a drunk person as rapists.

Again, not according to curent thinking. This would be characterised as victim-shaming, or blaming the victim instead of the aggressor. You sound a little ideologically out of date

carefreewannabe:
We were actually talking about rape in marriages and not rape between strangers but anyway. Would you say that it is MORALLY right to sleep with a woman who due to her irresponsible alcohol intake is very drunk and not in her right senses Mr Moralizer?

Accepted, I have derailed somewhat, but any discussion of rape has to define what constitutes rape.

I personally would never - even as a gentile, I would not date smokers, drinkers or substance abusers of any kind - Not just moral, also judgemental !

But even if they are both "very drunk" and intercourse takes place, he can be charged with rape - she can't. Hence coogars valid point - which I also alluded to - that men are being held responsible for womens actions. How does that square with you equality, freedom and responsibility mantra?

carefreewannabe:
First of all, saying that rape takes place when a person sleeps with another without their consent is not entirely wrong.
If someone spikes someone else's drink, then it is s*ex without consent and rape.
If someone loses consciousness, which can happen for several reasons without alcohol, and someone sleeps with that person without their consent, then it is rape.

I am not arguing any of this - needless to say, the legal definition is much less rigid than what you allow for

carefreewannabe:
The question of the OP is if there is such a thing as marital rape and I STILL BELIEVE that there is such a thing. You have not been able to convince me that there is no such thing. The story you have brought to this topic is an interesting one but rather irrelevant to the topic.

The marriage relationship/covenant is a conjugal one, that is the whole point. If a man brutalises or hurts his wife I have no problem with him being charged with assault, GBH, I just question it being handles as rape.

If a man gets his wife drunk in order to sleep with her or otherwise coerces her to have intercourse without force, has he raped her?

Of the flipside question;
If a women uses sex to obtain something or withholds it out of displeasure for not getting her way, what should she be charged with?

carefreewannabe:
If you believe that there is no such a thing as marital rape because the Bible tells you that your wife's body is yours, then that is your conviction, not mine.

It is both - my wife and I - our convictions - and hence not a state affair or anybody elses business. You see why it is tendentious butting into marital affairs. Where do people who are not married, or party to a marriage, get off butting in or legislating for the relationship of those who are !


TV

cococandy:
A rape will only be considered if she said no and the man went ahead or forced her to agree.
So where both parties are drunk and high and each considering the other their spouse,non can be accused of going over the border by making love to this spouse who said nothing in disagreement.

That is not how rape is defined. She has to say an emphatic yes and she must be in a state - not high, drunk - to give informed consent. Indeed, the push is for consent to be continuously and proactivley re-evaluated.

Neither wifey or I really drink - maybe we are missing a trick. Is it different than with good blunt ?


TV

carefreewannabe:
I don't know much about this case, this is why I am asking. I just did a quick google search and this was one of the first things that caught my attention and I decided to ask you because you seem to be familiar with the case.

If a girl drinks alcohol out of her free will and does not know her limits and on the next day does not remember anything, then it is her fault. That does not give anyone the right to sleep with her but it cannot be proven whether she consented or not and that's her own fault.

If a girl gets "intoxicated" because someone puts a drug into her drink to make her lose consciousness, then that's a different thing altogether, is it not?

...if by intoxicated you mean spiked drink, of course that's rape. And the bolded bit is the whole point, if she drinks to forgetfullness, legally it's not her fault, the onus is on the accused to prove consent, not the accuser to regulate her drinking or moderate her behaviour.

So, if she went out got drunk and copped off with a boy she fancied, instead of her being a cheating ho', she becomes a rape victim. Not to make too much of a point about it, it would help if you based you understanding of marital rape on rape as defined, not as you believe, as your beliefs as stated are not aligned with how it's legally defined.

It's somewhat blasé to trumpet marital rape without giving the nuances due consideration.

TV

coogar:
and it's for this reason we cannot apply this to marital cases. if ched was married to the victim, it's highly unlikely for her to ring the cops that she had been räped. cases like this are usually around strangers meeting up or booty calls.

The victim did not allege rape, she woke up in a hotel room, couldn't remember what had happened or find her phone and the hotel staff suggested she call the police. CCTV showed she rocked up to the hotel with the two guys, so they were asked to report in. They relayed what transpired and the rest is history.

I agree that it is more unlikely to happen in marital cases, but my point was what technically constitutes rape. Plus there's a funny one you always remind us of where a husband got done for not withdrawing after the act has started - as his wife withdrew consent part way through or did he go beyond what was agreed?

coogar:
even if she was conscious, she has to express consent for the whole act not to be illegal. if she was silent when the question was posed to her - it is still not consent.

They both claim she consented, one was let off and one convicted.

coogar:
well, let's just admit the law doesn't deem women as responsible enough when it comes to the issue of sëx. they have to be constantly asked every minute if the act can proceed. consent can also be withdrawn at any point during intercöurse. if she says "stop" around the time her partner is about to ejäculate & the partner thrusts once after then, he can be charged with räpe!

Per the bolded, please tell that to those pushing for equality, responsibility and freedom. As for the rest, is it not clear that the male sexual response is different to a females? He could technically be at the point of "surrender" as she withdraws consent, and thus not able to halt his climax. Na rape be that na !

TV

carefreewannabe:
Hold on, was she drunk or intoxicated? There is a difference, is there not?

Please tell us what the difference is and how it affects the case as outlined. Especially as the victim has to be deemed able to give informed consent at the time of intercourse and the transgressor has to be able to prove she did. So if the victim cannot remember and the accused cannt evidence - wise use of smart phone - he has raped her. Plus there is no law where a woman can directly rape a man

I'm sure we'll hear you pushing for both these "oversights" to be remedied under your equality & responsibility drive.


TV

coogar:
if she feels she has been räped and she calls the cops then the husband deserves to be charged and prosecuted. everything is about the perception of the victim.

i get where you are coming from though - but my definition of marital räpe would be a situation where a husband violently räpes his wife - not the other technicalities involved i.e. consent!

That's the whole point - the pivotal determinant of rape is consent. This is pretty much what happened in the Ched Evans case. The "victim" claims she doesn't remember anything and did not actually allege rape, there wasn't even any evidence that intercourse had taken place. They only knew because Ched and his friend both confirmed they'd slept with her - with her consent.

But as she was considered unable to give "informed consent", they were both charged with rape. And even more weirdly, only one convicted?

Sex is now something men do to women and men have to take responsibility for womens choices. The E, F and H words in a nutshell !


TV

carefreewannabe:
Says who?

She cannot remember consenting but she can remember that she was raped?



I don't agree that she has been raped just because she does not remember consenting. If she doesn't remember consenting, she also cannot remember saying no, right? So a rape cannot be proven.

Anyone who drinks to the point that he / she does not remember what he / she did, should not drink. Alcohol is not an excuse.

The wording of rape laws - and the push - in the West (certainly UK and the US, and I would have thought Deutscheland), mean that where a women is deemed incapable of giving consent (as in when drunk), if intercourse has taken place, she has effectively been raped. Informed consent is the sole determinant.

Charges can be brought even if the "victim" does not allege rape - and the man being equally drunk is no defense, as the wording also deems sex and thus rape to be something men do to women.

The whole notion of rape has become politicised and ideologically weighted.

It would be good if you grasped the nuances of what you are pushing - your response to my question casts doubt or at least makes me wonder.


TV

esere826:
good to know we have a meeting point
so let me explain
I only believe he is. just like I believe that TB Joshua is, and believe that I am.
Those are just my beliefs/perception based on what I have processed and think i understand
By his fruits, he sure spreads the gospel of sinlessness. i do not question this nor the type of gospel itself. what I question is follow follow throughout most of ones lifetime without grounding, like a guy that came here parroting what he was taught. I also kinda question the subtle encouragement of people to do what they wont otherwise do to bring in money. This is an ethical thing to me.
yep, i would think that miracls can be worked outside God, but pls refer to my conclusion
also refer to my conclusion

CONCLUSION
interestingly the gospel of sinlessness if true (I believe it is)
means that you can indeed tap into God independent of your character whether good or considered evil. it essentially says that its not your character that matters to tap into what is already available to you
it also means someone who tries to live by the typical xtian values is able to achieve same result as someone who discards the typical xtian values

based on this gospel of sinlessnes
so after the 'born again' point, how do you tap into Gods goodies whether you're good or evil
Chris suggests that it is mainly through money
some say its through prayers and fasting
some say it is through keeping quiet when pastor messes up
some say it is by follow follow
some say it is by pursuing what God has laid in your heart to do
the list goes on and on

Thanks again, I can't say I agree with the "gospel of sinlessness" as defined and outlined here. It seems the write-up is for a particular audience, so fair dos..


TV

carefreewannabe:
Let it be the same question every day as long as there are still people who claim that there is no such a thing as rape in a marriage.

If a man and his wife both drink, subsequently have intercourse and then fall asleep, if she awakens after the fact and cannot remember consenting to the act, he has technically raped her and can be charged.

This is even if they both drunk to stupor and neither can remember anything, and even if she does not claim to have been raped.

Are you satisfies that he has indeed raped her and should be charged and prosecuted?


TV

HNY Aisha,

We basically do KISS . We spend all my income, we then start on my wife's income. Anything left over, she saves.

aisha2:
Times are becoming very hard, some workers experiencing salary delays, business people being owed by Government offices and individuals.
In the midst of all these how do you stay afloat and plan for the future ( savings, fees, rent, housing projects etc)

1. How do you handle bills? Monthly bills like light, water, generator, baby needs ( if you have a little baby).

2. Are you able to keep some stash away?

3. How do you reduce cost? Do you buy in bulk? Buy and share?

4. How do you save for projects or annual expenditure like rent, save towards building a house and childrens fees?

5. Are you registered with NHIS? This saves medical expenses a lot or do you just pay cash when there is a medical emergency?

6. How do you handle extended family demands and expectations?

Do you operate a single or double income household.

The reason for this post is to help younger ones coming into marriage understand the reality of marriage beyond the glitz and glamour

But to answer you questiosn in turn

1. My wife pays household bills and pays for the majority of our foodstuffs (old school word ). Wifey also sorts out childrens basics. I pay for nursery fees.

2. Per KISS. I also overpay the mortgage every month - and we could draw that back if required.

3. We buy in bulk, but so not share. Have heard the idea floated and know some who di it though. Wifey is ace on the internet and seaches for the best deals on everything. I make sure to question and prove a shortlist of her proposals.

4. We don't save for projects per se; we save andf then see what we can do in the short, medium and long terms. We also prioritise and park some that are currently out of reach as we look for ways to transform our income.

5. We rely on the UK NHS and I have healthcare from work. We practice primary/preventative healthcare, but most of all trust God. I'm so pious !

6. Together. We literally have a policy, but consider each instance individually. Thankfully we don;t have to much of a burden here. We also co-ordinate our charitable giving.

It's a labour of loff.

TV

carefreewannabe:
Of course not, I am not insane.

You dey fear huh. Or have you given up on Manuel !


TV

esere826:
The target audience for this write up was folks who share some similar beliefs to mine -the once saved always saved crew
and those that many times agree with the man but find it difficult to understand why some of his (or his ministries) actions or utterances seem at variance with what they consider cherished christian values

And finally it was my little way of empathizing with the woman in the center of the whole brouhaha

..it might be difficult for someone outside this circle to understand it except they understand (even if they not accept) the gospel of sinlessness.

I grasp the concept of a "gospel of sinlessness", but how does agreeing with it prove if someone is anointed, a worker of divine miracles etc as posed by my questions?

Thanks for taking the time to respond anyway.


TV

carefreewannabe:
I have. What if he forces her to have s*ex with him without hurting her?

Please re-read- carefully. Are you considering marriage ?


TV

carefreewannabe:
And what if he does?

Please re-read- carefully. Are you considering marriage? !


TV

...in some jurisdictions a man can legally be charged with raping his wife.

Personally, I don't believe that should be the case. The marital union is a conjugal one. If anything, he could be charged with GBH if he forces and/or injures her.

And from a Christian perspective her body is now his - as his is hers. But note, that as being one flesh with her, to hurt his wife is to hate himself - who hates his own flesh?

So, no, I personally don't believe a man can "rape" his wife, but he shouldn't in anyway force or brutalise her.


TV

@Frosbel, please keep us posted


TV

PastorKun:
Sup bro? Longest time!

I dey 0!
Started an expanding family so "exodused" to the Family section. Stil step back here on rare occassion - just felt like responding to this.

How are you? I pray very well. And journeying purposefully. Any major life events?

All the very best.

TV

...apologies all for not reading through all the posts prior to responding - just came across this now

frosbel:
Starting with the ones you know and that I hold to be myth ;

- trinity
- Virgin birth
- hell fire and heaven
- tithes and offerings
- compulsory church attendance
- one pastor leadership model

The first three are doctrinal questions, the second three are questions of practice and "religion" (Although I appreciate that dodgy practice oft times emanates from faulty doctrine).

I'll start wirth the 2nd three;
As my early posting history will show, I also reject all three of these practices - indeed, it was my research into the doctrine of a compulsory tithe that led me to NL in 2006. Indeed, it's from scripture itself that you can show that these are wrong. That is not to reject Christinaity, it's to rightly eschew man-made religion.

The fact men - as men are wont to do - have introduced bad practice into the faith should not move you (assuming these men are actually of the faith, regardless of what they claim). If anything my faith is now stronger than when I was embedded in the institutional church.

The first 3
- Trinity; I've never really looked at to closely and is instinctively odd to me. I worship God in Christ Jesus, and believe that Jesus is fully God; guess I'm a Duotarian
- Hellfire & Heaven; Is it the question of eternal burning? ! I used to fear this; I'm prone to believe in annihilation.
- Virgin birth; without this - along with the death and ressurection - there is simply no Christianity. Presumbaly you don't believe the biblical account of Adams creation either?

In all, true christian faith is experientail and revelatory. You'll never be fully persuaded by reading articles and "scholarly" works. I am dfully at ease with the fact that there are some somethings, I don't know, some I haven't fully considered and even some I may not ever get to. I don't question God, I let God answer my questions. I believe and place my faith in Him to lead me and reveal things to me as required. That's faith.

frosbel:
These ones are bad enough, but the most serious ones are attempts by some gospel writers to tie their accounts to prophecies that do not exist , are half-complete or not related in any form or shape. None of the gospel writers were eye witnesses of the events surrounding Jesus , they were mostly anonymous authors who took on the name of popular people like Matthew , John etc.

The oldest gospel is Mark around 70ad with Matthew and Luke following and lastly John. John's gospel imbibed elements of gnosticism and Hellenistic belief to tell the story of Jesus to a mostly Greek audience. Matthew no doubt copied from Mark and made some refinements , many of which were presumptuous interpolations to deify Jesus and remove Mark's tendency to make Jesus look like he did not know everything. The account of Jesus's death and resurrection are not aligned and portray serious inconsistencies that cannot be overlooked.

I am still studying and will form a final summary of my findings and stance in the near future.

I still believe in Christ as the Messiah and his ultimate resurrection purely because of Paul. Paul's letters predate the gospels and were written nearer to the time of Jesus by as much as 20 years or so. This means he must have had real contact with the original apostles as he states , and was the one person who was able to articulate the whole concept of Jesus's death, burial, resurrection and purpose into a logical sequence of events pointing to the good news and God's ultimate plan for mankind.

By the way Peter did not write the epistles of Peter because he was an unlettered fisherman considering that the epistle was written in classic Greek which only the elites of that day could do.

Too many to mention, I am still going on ........".

This second part is somewhat woolly. Does the gosel, scriptural narrative and Gods eternal purpose not hang together from your perspective?

I see no real issues here and actually think if you are truly seeking you'll find your way back - if you have faith, He'll lead you. I can but testify.

Godspeed
TV

esere826:
1. I have no doubt that Pastor Chris is anointed
2. I have no doubt that he is also dedicated to spreading the gospel
3. I also have no doubt that he works miracles in the name of God
4. I also understand the gospel of sinlessnes

1. How are you certain he's anointed? And more specifically anointed by God?
2. Even if we don't question his dedication, which "gospel" is he dedicated to? Especially when you yourself question his gospel of sinlessness
3. How are you sure? Miracles - or seeming miracles - can be worked outside God
4. I appreciate that to understand is not to endorse, but how do yo umake your claims 1-3 above - with any certainty - if you don't.

Wild card;
5. Even if you assume he started with genuine fervour, and in Gods will. Do you believe he is still in/doing it at this point?


TV

...so let me get this right;

Men build the internet, women try to break it using their arses?
Men land a probe on a distant planet - breaking new frontiers - feminsits take offence because he's wearing a politically incorrect shirt??

I'm still looking for evidence to dispel the notion that men build civilisations and drive progress...women are good for domestication and creating drama...as evidenced .


TV

^{...he not only apologised, he cried...hero to zero at warp speed !}

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

...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

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

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:
Which is why I said in my very first comment, this option is totally unnecessary for straight men.

No normal straight-as-a-needle dude is going to be bio-manufacturing female eggs from his skin when he's got at least two chics on speed-dial...but then again, who knows what would be considered normal in the future.

Agree with your train of thought. With marriage, sex and children all essentially "divorced", why would this appeal to normal men? Especially those that understand raising children is not beanz, the skills women bring to it, and want the best outcome for their kids.

All it does is further muddle the perception of human sexuality and procreation, and serve to legitimise what many consider to be illegitimate/immoral expressions of it.

TV

cococandy:
not an actual win.
Ideally kids should have parents of different sexes yea. I agree.

Not just opposite sex, but also their exact biological progenitors. And I appreciate some instances deviate from the ideal, but I feel that in our use of technology and in our policy forming we should act aspirationally => towards the ideal

cococandy:
The lesser of two evils of for them to have parents who don't hate each other at least even if same sex or single parent.

I see that as something of a false dichotomy, as if the choices are two hating parents or any other combination. The outcomes for same-sex or single parenting are simply not as good and are a denial of a childs rights. And one thing many do not realise, is that the outcomes are better for the child even if the parents relationship could be characterised as low-conflict.

cococandy:
I understand your concern because it turns the wild upside down as we know it not to mention how unethical it is.

The Gospel was reported to have turned the world upside down - as long as it's real quantifiable progress, I have no problem. I see it as a descent into madness.


TV

cococandy:
Women have been paying men for sex.

In the same way that female prostitution is considered the oldest industry? On the same scale, in the same manner. Tenuous.

cococandy:
Where have you been living?

Ok I've lived an admittedly sheltered life and maintain a spartan lifestyle, but I'm not totally unaware .

cococandy:
It is the norm (as in norm) as much as female prostitution in many nigerian cities.

The point is what is driving this phenomena, or this strain of it? We know it's extant, but in a different form and with a different dynamic. It's not sugary or cougarism as described. Merely saying it's the equivalent of men paying sex for women, or worse reading it as men selling themselves sexually totally misses the point.

cococandy:
Although it is rare to see them standing by the roadside like some of their female counterparts, but there are clubs established specifically for that business and their clients even include married women.

TV

cococandy:
I wonder how this is news or what it has to do with feminism.

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.

cococandy:
Even before my mother was born it has been in existence. Kini big deal?

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

cococandy:
Just like there are women who don't wanna do real work to make money,there are also men who don't want to do that either.
Totally inverted thinking here - is this driven by men wanting to be prostitutes or women behaving like men?

[quote author=cococandy post=29515922]Easy money. Chop and clean mouth. No strings attached.

Not the thrust of the article

cococandy:
Nothing new. At all. at all

...

TV

Plus. this is already in effect in a sense - normalising homosexuality and legalising their "having" children, mean that women are used as carriers/surrogates - disposable wombs, with no rights to or responsibility for the child. Effectively making women mere breeders and more worringly, children mere commodities.

Who in their right minds would think that's a good thing?

Hmmm...


TV

cococandy:
Don't call me weird but I think this is wonderful in its own way.

If it ever comes to fruition

How? why??

cococandy:
it is simple really. Let the men who feel they do not need women have kids their way. Kids that are totally theirs without any contribution of gametes from a woman.
At least we will be spared the touching stories that come out of loveless marriages.
And they don't have to deal with 'unpleasantness' that comes with associating daily with a woman.
They are happy, we are happy, everyone is happy. Win win win
#in my dreams in know.

...how is this a win for the kids? Dream well 0!

TV