patrick.net

Indiana Jones says

I believe whenever we compromise ourselves and do something that doesn't honor our selves, in return for something we believe we need or want, we are prostituting ourselves.

Honey, you and everyone else prostitutes yourself every time you show up to work. Do you really want to be spending your time working for a corporation? You are trading your most precious commodity, time, for money. But you do that because you have to in order to make a living. It's not ideal, but it's hardly degrading.

As for sex, young men and women both want it and a lot. Young people are horny, like it or not -- and personally, I like it -- and that includes women. It is your opinion that a woman being horny and lusting after people and wanting to expose herself is degrading or prostituting or not "honorable" whatever the fuck that means. It certainly isn't a fact that feeling lust and being turned on by looking at or being looked at is somehow dishonorable or degrading.

Certainly there are trade-offs between short-term and long-term sexual behaviors and certainly the current system, for reasons too advance to get to in this discussion, is not the optimal solution for happiness for either gender. However, discussing those trade-offs and deciding what behavior will yield the maximum satisfaction in all aspects of one's life does not entail making some moral judgement against those who choose a different path than the one you like. Every person owns his or her sexuality and ultimate has no one to answer to except himself/herself and his or her long-term, committed mates.

I do agree that long-term relationships are more beneficial and stable, and obviously so given even basic game theory, but that's a practical assessment, not a moral one. In my opinion, the morality of sexual relations comes not in the choice of long-term vs. short-term, but rather in the choice of cooperation vs. defection. It's not immoral to seek short-term relations, which both genders do in abundance. However, It is immoral to pretend to seek a long-term relation with someone when you are really seeking a short-term one, and this is something both genders do. In males, this comes in the form of having a relationship lasting years, typically with a woman in her early to mid 20s, giving all the overtures of relationship that may lead to marriage but never having any intention of marrying her and then leaving her when she's older and he acquires a younger version of her. In females, this comes in the form of marrying a man for financial security and to have a father to help raise the children she has, almost always secretly, with another male.

I have had 26 sexual partners in my life so far -- I'd have had far more if I hadn't seeked long-term relationships exclusively in my teens and early to mid 20s. Not once did I pretend to be seeking a long-term relationship when I wasn't. Most of my sexual partners have been short-term ones that I did not love or intend to marry. However, I made no pretense that our relationship was more than sex and maybe friendship. As such I see no way in which I have ever degraded a woman. If you want to make the argument otherwise, then give me a reason why my actions were somehow "dishonorable" to the willing and quite frankly enthusiastic sexual partners I had. Also explain why the denigration seems to only go one way in your mind.

I'd say that looks and height are more important than money and power when it comes to scoring with chicks. Women love them a hot toned guy, and if he's also smart and nice, it will be hard to make them leave him alone. As long as he's self sufficient, well groomed, and doesn't reek of desperation, women will spread their legs.
Honestly, it's hardly difficult to get women to boink with these days. What's hard is maintaining a relationship with one long enough to have and raise kids. I get more enjoyment from my kids than my sex life, but whatever. You make your choices in this life, and there are trade-offs to every arrangement.

Hard or soft? :-/

Quigley says

As long as he's self sufficient, well groomed, and doesn't reek of desperation, women will spread their legs.

Honestly, it's hardly difficult to get women to boink with these days. What's hard is maintaining a relationship with one long enough to have and raise kids.

And you see how both of these things are related to each other and to the pill, right? The pill resulted in a dramatic shift in the mating market -- and yes, it is a market like it or not -- from long-term to short-term. This has made it almost trivially easy to get laid for men, but it has also made it nearly impossible to establish and maintain a life-long relationship or to find a quality life-partner. Note that life-partner and sexual partner mean completely different things.

Quigley says

As long as he's self sufficient, well groomed, and doesn't reek of desperation, women will spread their legs

I need names and phone numbers please......

I don't disagree with you on this, Dan. The current culture is extremely hostile to marriage and committed lifelong relationships. Women are constantly encouraged to seek their own wants and needs and ignore the needs of their partner. Men are subjected to extreme cultural criticism about their looks, style, hair, job, wealth, education, and even their penis. Whenever something goes wrong, it's up to the man to fix things, and if fixing things takes too much time or effort you can be sure the woman will complain about that too. Men are expected to repress their feelings but be in touch with hers and willin to listen to hours of the most mind numbing drivel as she bitches about the trivial inconveniences in her life, but they mustn't zone out or stop listening! No, that is death if she catches them! Oh, and men should keep their own problems to themselves, no matter how horrendous and soul crushing. Admitting difficulties to a woman raises a red flag in her mind that the man might be on the road to Loserville, which triggers an automatic flight or seek-a-new-man syndrome.
And that's the best case scenario.

Sometimes I think those Muslims have it right with the way they treat their women.

Dan8267 says

Honey, you and everyone else prostitutes yourself every time you show up to work. Do you really want to be spending your time working for a corporation? You are trading your most precious commodity, time, for money. But you do that because you have to in order to make a living. It's not ideal, but it's hardly degrading.

Now that I've known a bunch of prostitutes, I can say one thing, many would rather go that route than to take on a "real" job.

For instance, one wanted to be in financial services, but after a few months of 50 hour work weeks, she dropped it, to see clients at $200/hr, which is the going rate with a lot of Australian escorts. The average Australian accountant earns ~$54K/yr. She makes that, seeing 2 or 3 clients per week for a few hours. Obviously, she does more work because it looked like she traveled a lot to England, Singapore, etc, but it's not like the work is taxing. I mean it's just BJs and spreading her legs.

Quigley says

Women love them a hot toned guy, and if he's also smart and nice, it will be hard to make them leave him alone.

Actually, women love hot, toned, and tattooed douchebags. Or if the woman wants pure white collar, an abusive sales executive or sociopathic litigator. But yes, they're both categories of douchebags, though douchebags, conceptually, are more associated with rogues/thugs.

The man in your statement is actually me and for the most part, until I'd left STEM for financial services, women were not that interested in me. But today, I'm no longer 'nice' just outwardly polite. And I don't care to date women anymore.

Rin says

Now that I've known a bunch of prostitutes, I can say one thing, many would rather go that route than to take on a "real" job.

For instance, one wanted to be in financial services, but after a few months of 50 hour work weeks, she dropped it, to see clients at $200/hr, which is the going rate with a lot of Australian escorts. The average Australian accountant earns ~$54K/yr. She makes that, seeing 2 or 3 clients per week for a few hours. Obviously, she does more work because it looked like she traveled a lot to England, Singapore, etc, but it's not like the work is taxing. I mean it's just BJs and spreading her legs.

BTW, the other big lie is that Femi-Nazis will usually say that these women don't want this escorting work and were trafficked. Well, I'd say that driving from the outer 'burbs of Sydney into its downtown region is not trafficking; it's called, being stuck in traffic.

All and all, there's this false notion that a slew of women want to study a hard STEM field and become nuclear engineers but guys have routinely held them them back. In reality, most non-Asian females won't put in the effort to become a nuclear engineer. At best, you'll see the more diligent women go premed than anything else. And many of those women are also Asian. The truth is that the average woman wants more money for less work.

Quigley says

Sometimes I think those Muslims have it right with the way they treat their women.

False dichotomy. The Middle Eastern Islamic countries treat women like property and that's down right evil. Men in America don't have it as bad as women in the Middle East by far, but there is no reason to believe that we have to choose between a misogynous culture or a misandrist one. There are plenty of far better alternatives.

Rin says

Actually, women love hot, toned, and tattooed douchebags.

Unfortunately, this is true for many women. It's because their genes are assuming that douchebags are more likely to get their genes into the next generation, what scientists call the Sexy Son Hypothesis. If a woman bears the child of a womanizing douchebag that other women also find attractive because he's a douchebag, then any male descendants she has will have douchebag genes and will be attractive to the dumb douchebag-chasing women who will bear his children. Or as women put it, "you want a bad boy you can turn good", except that they never turn him good.

Rin says

All and all, there's this false notion that a slew of women want to study a hard STEM field and become nuclear engineers but guys have routinely held them them back. In reality, most non-Asian females won't put in the effort to become a nuclear engineer. At best, you'll see the more diligent women go premed than anything else. And many of those women are also Asian. The truth is that the average woman wants more money for less work.

+1

It pisses me off when pseudo-feminists blame STEM workers for the lack of women in STEM when it's the bigotry of non-Asian women that's the cause of that lack.

Indiana Jones says

I am talking about systemic wide exploitation in using a person's body and sexuality to sell anything, whether it is a beer at Hooters, calvin klein jeans or a ticket into a strip joint.

Are you asking men not to be attracted to pictures of attractive women?

Or are you asking advertisers not to use what actually works, but rather to let other companies use it to take revenue and market share?

Or are you asking the people to use the law to restrict freedom of speech because you don't like how it's being used?

Or maybe you're just asking people in general to avoid products that use pictures of attractive women in their ads...

sbh says

men's continued douchebaggery

BTW, when did the term douchebag, go critical?

Until perhaps a decade ago, the pejorative term, dirtbag, used to encompass a lot of today's douchebags. But then, all of a sudden, we got this massive flux of douchebaggery nationwide.

sbh says

Does that mean we can partially blame women for men's continued douchebaggery?

It's a positive feedback mechanism called "sexual exaggeration". It's the same reason women have breasts.

Dan8267 says

+1

It pisses me off when pseudo-feminists blame STEM workers for the lack of women in STEM when it's the bigotry of non-Asian women that's the cause of that lack.

The thing is that the OP is actually, not too disparate from these Femi-Nazis.

In the beginning, she'll say that those Australian prostitutes were trafficked. Then, if/when they show their green cards or Aussie passports, she'll change tack and say that they were conditioned by a male dominated society.

But then, when she sees that many were in fact, students, or earlier working as waitresses, secretaries, accountants, etc, then she'll run and hide because she can't throw the Navy nuclear engineer wannabe credo at us.

However, as soon as the legal hoes with papers disappear from the context, using a few weeks to forget about the earlier situation, we get back to the notion of trafficking women from eastern Europe or South America, and then again it arises ... the idea that men had stopped women from becoming nuclear engineers.

This is the basic pick 'n roll strategies of Femi-Nazis, so that men are tricked into ditching half their income for them. In reality, women will bang douchebags anyways. How about instead, banging a nice guy who's willing to pay for the ride?

Rin says

This is the basic pick 'n roll strategies of Femi-Nazis, so that men are tricked into ditching half their income for them. In reality, women will bang douchebags anyways. How about instead, banging a nice guy who's willing to pay for the ride?

And in the land of the free and brave, if a woman shows up and says to me, "Hey look, I'd maxed out my credit cards and have zero savings because I'm a poor saver and I love to shop for useless outfits and jewelery, can we bang, and you can cover this month's rent?"

I'd have to turn her down because I wouldn't know if she were undercover vice squad. In Australia, however, the above wouldn't be an issue.

Women will bang douchebags anyway? Dang, if only I had known years ago.