5 ms·

“I see a lot of men leading people on, sleeping with a dozen women at the same time. But if each of the dozen women doesn’t care, is there any crime committed?

“I see a lot of men leading people on, sleeping with a dozen women at the same time. But if each of the dozen women doesn’t care, is there any crime committed? You could say it’s disgusting but not illegal—it just perpetuates a culture that keeps women down.” How does it keep women down? Sleeping with a guy is a built in option women have to better their lives, that men don't have. Otherwise they're just like the rest of us poor schmuck dudes that actually have to go into work everyday. I'm so confused about what women expect these days.

philipodonnell 9y ago
It's easy to see it this way, but unfortunately it doesn't work like this in practice. "Something you can pay with" and "something you're expected to pay with or you're out" can describe the same asset, but are much more driven by the relative power of the person being paid. We tend to honor the former (as you do) until it becomes the latter (as it mostly seems actually is when it's allowed).
xg15 9y ago
I'm sure there are enough gay or bi VCs that would give men a chance as well, if they'd just ask the right way. So you, too, can use that option to better your life. Feel free to try!
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  I agree! It happens alot I'm sure! I'm just not a hot gay guy so it STILL doesn't apply to me.
MollyR 9y ago
Women aren't a homogeneous subgroup. Your phrasing is also offensive, but I've dealt with many neuro-atypicals so I'm sympathetic . I suspect you are asking what is the social contract expectation from women ? In this period of deep social unrest, I don't think people could give a unified answer.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  Wat? This has nothing to do with women being a homogenous subgroup or not. The fact remains. All Women and some hot gay guys... ALWAYS have an out by being a trophy wife or just a standard housewife. It's probably why there's so few homeless women..because they have a built in fallback plan.
erroneousfunk 9y ago
"Sleeping with a guy is a built in option women have to better their lives, that men don't have." This is a complicated issue, and there's a lot to unpack here. That technique may be used for women (and, heck, men too -- I'm the female 'breadwinner' of my household, although I didn't meet my husband at a sex party...) to better their lives, but those gains may be sporadic, and they depend on the continued cooperation of the man they're sleeping with. I was in a "trophy girlfriend" relationship when I was young and my entire life revolved around "keeping" this guy. After a while, he broke up with me, I had to ask my parents for rent money (I had taken a first class trip to Europe the month before, but what was I going to do, ask him to put the money into my emergency savings account instead?), my entire life sort of fell apart. I went to parties with his friends, lived in his apartment, had a credit card on his account. Making sure he was happy was a job, but the skills weren't entirely transferable and there was no security. Not a situation I wanted to be in again, and I didn't. Having a job, skills are easily transferable between employers, resources in my own name, and a relationship built on mutual respect and kindness, gives me far more freedom and security than sleeping with guys for the lifestyle perks. Even with alimony and child support in the picture (in which case you need to "get him" to marry you and/or have children) there is no facet of your life or lifestyle that is insulated from the whims of a single person. No, you may not starve after a divorce, but, especially if there's a pre-nup involved, the "betterment" in your life will always be temporary gain during the length of the relationship while his will be a permanent one. Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't go to these parties or sleep with these men if they want to, or that considering a man's private jet ownership when debating about whether or not you want to sleep with him is an immoral choice. But saying "This is a built-in option for women that men don't have... the rest of us poor schmuck dudes actually have to go to work everyday" is an incredible simplification that makes the two choices sound like equivalent things, when they're absolutely not. On a side note: The presence of these particular sex parties, and the fact that they're so closely intertwined with business in Silicon Valley, I think is an problem. As the article paints it, there's sort of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" issue that they're introducing for women working in certain companies or who are seeking VC funding.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  -""I was in a "trophy girlfriend" relationship when I was young and my entire life revolved around "keeping" this guy"" It's absolutely a job. Why wouldn't it be? My point is that it's always an option for an even marginally attractive women that average dudes don't have, (which may be the reason the homeless population of women is such a minority.) Not a lot of plump hairy average dudes wearing yoga pants with the word sexy and a midriff shirt trying to keep their rich man happy(gay or straight). So my point remains....it's an extra option always available to women. I don't understand how that could be considered "keeping women down". It's more like women always have an option available to them that the rest of us don't.

philipodonnell 9y ago

It's easy to see it this way, but unfortunately it doesn't work like this in practice. "Something you can pay with" and "something you're expected to pay with or you're out" can describe the same asset, but are much more driven by the relative power of the person being paid. We tend to honor the former (as you do) until it becomes the latter (as it mostly seems actually is when it's allowed).

xg15 9y ago

I'm sure there are enough gay or bi VCs that would give men a chance as well, if they'd just ask the right way. So you, too, can use that option to better your life. Feel free to try!

nickthemagicman 9y ago
I agree! It happens alot I'm sure! I'm just not a hot gay guy so it STILL doesn't apply to me.

MollyR 9y ago

Women aren't a homogeneous subgroup. Your phrasing is also offensive, but I've dealt with many neuro-atypicals so I'm sympathetic . I suspect you are asking what is the social contract expectation from women ? In this period of deep social unrest, I don't think people could give a unified answer.

nickthemagicman 9y ago
Wat? This has nothing to do with women being a homogenous subgroup or not. The fact remains. All Women and some hot gay guys... ALWAYS have an out by being a trophy wife or just a standard housewife. It's probably why there's so few homeless women..because they have a built in fallback plan.

erroneousfunk 9y ago

"Sleeping with a guy is a built in option women have to better their lives, that men don't have." This is a complicated issue, and there's a lot to unpack here. That technique may be used for women (and, heck, men too -- I'm the female 'breadwinner' of my household, although I didn't meet my husband at a sex party...) to better their lives, but those gains may be sporadic, and they depend on the continued cooperation of the man they're sleeping with. I was in a "trophy girlfriend" relationship when I was young and my entire life revolved around "keeping" this guy. After a while, he broke up with me, I had to ask my parents for rent money (I had taken a first class trip to Europe the month before, but what was I going to do, ask him to put the money into my emergency savings account instead?), my entire life sort of fell apart. I went to parties with his friends, lived in his apartment, had a credit card on his account. Making sure he was happy was a job, but the skills weren't entirely transferable and there was no security. Not a situation I wanted to be in again, and I didn't. Having a job, skills are easily transferable between employers, resources in my own name, and a relationship built on mutual respect and kindness, gives me far more freedom and security than sleeping with guys for the lifestyle perks. Even with alimony and child support in the picture (in which case you need to "get him" to marry you and/or have children) there is no facet of your life or lifestyle that is insulated from the whims of a single person. No, you may not starve after a divorce, but, especially if there's a pre-nup involved, the "betterment" in your life will always be temporary gain during the length of the relationship while his will be a permanent one. Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't go to these parties or sleep with these men if they want to, or that considering a man's private jet ownership when debating about whether or not you want to sleep with him is an immoral choice. But saying "This is a built-in option for women that men don't have... the rest of us poor schmuck dudes actually have to go to work everyday" is an incredible simplification that makes the two choices sound like equivalent things, when they're absolutely not. On a side note: The presence of these particular sex parties, and the fact that they're so closely intertwined with business in Silicon Valley, I think is an problem. As the article paints it, there's sort of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" issue that they're introducing for women working in certain companies or who are seeking VC funding.

nickthemagicman 9y ago
-""I was in a "trophy girlfriend" relationship when I was young and my entire life revolved around "keeping" this guy"" It's absolutely a job. Why wouldn't it be? My point is that it's always an option for an even marginally attractive women that average dudes don't have, (which may be the reason the homeless population of women is such a minority.) Not a lot of plump hairy average dudes wearing yoga pants with the word sexy and a midriff shirt trying to keep their rich man happy(gay or straight). So my point remains....it's an extra option always available to women. I don't understand how that could be considered "keeping women down". It's more like women always have an option available to them that the rest of us don't.