3 ms·

No, it isn't the only way for many men to do so. The issue is that they don't want to put in the time or effort to be the kind of man that can, and they have ra

by Noos 7y ago

No, it isn't the only way for many men to do so. The issue is that they don't want to put in the time or effort to be the kind of man that can, and they have radically unrealistic expectation of sex itself. No, you cannot bang a supermodel, but you can find a woman who loves you and will be with you. No, men don't have a right to sex, because it involves a woman surrendering herself; its not something innate to the man that is being denied. It's dark to make it so that women need to surrender themselves to strangers on demand for cash because men have a right to the act, and that's just part of it. Sex is really only healthy where there is mutual love and at least some level of commitment; without it there is a huge lack of protection for the woman and it becomes a banal experience for the man, because he cannot have love or intimacy from it, just the act that becomes more and more extreme over time precisely because its divorced from human sentiment. honestly i wish dang would ban these kinds of topics because we usually only get one side of them based on sort of an inhuman libertarianism; there's no "intellectual curiosity" about this, just sort of a repetition of a specific set of views with very little attempt to challenge or provide the unpopular side.

golemiprague 7y ago
on one hand feminists claim men and woman are exactly the same , on the other hand you say here that a woman having sex with a man is "surrendering herself". So which one it is, just so we can start the discussion on the same page. I don't know whether anybody have a right to anything, but what I do know is that the government enforce me to pay taxes to support a growing number of single mums who never had sex with me, they had sex with other people but from some reason I need to finance them instead of investing this money in my own children. So I wonder, if you can force me to pay for female sexual escapades and their spawns and the exciting guys they had sex with because I "didn't put the effort and have unrealistic expectations", why can't I have an agreed upon transaction, where i pay directly the woman who have sex with me? It seems that the effort I put into generating enough taxes is happily taken by all those women via the government and law enforcement, for that I am attractive enough. To be honest, I don't have much hope, today being an average white man who just go to work, share custody of his children and do all the regular duties is like being the worst criminal in the world, a person to be ridiculed and abused by all kind of interest groups. So I have learned the lesson, I just move my business and money to second world countries where the western feminist/racist/agist cancer didn't hit yet. Nobody is going to get my tax money if they don't want to give anything back, just extorting me and then spitting in my face. I'd rather give my money to south east asian hookers for having a drink with me than to taxes falling into the hands of all those blood sucking critters. I vote for the most extreme right wing parties I can, not because I support their agenda but in spite, because I feel like I am being screwed up by everyone. I am not even a boomer.
throwno 7y ago
Do you also apply this argument to economic inequality? No, you can't be the CEO, but if you "put in the time or effort to be the kind of man that can" make a living wage, then you don't need to demand socialism. Do low skill workers have an unrealistic expectation of wages? There's a job out there for everybody, you either have to improve yourself to get the wages you desire, or lower your standards. Who's the "inhuman libertarian"? I agree sex workers and their customers should be shunned, but by the same logic, so must socialism.
hiram112 7y ago
> No, men don't have a right to sex,... I would say men have a moral right to sex as much as women have a moral right to not be physically and sexually abused by men, at least in an advanced human society that we want. Naturally, evolution has left the sexes in an unpleasant predicament - look at higher mammals like chimps or great apes for the state we'd fall into without our societal boundaries. We're long past the point where we've 'artificially' propped up women to a pedestal that wouldn't be obtainable without men raising them up - the freedom to earn money regardless of actual production, safety against physical / sexual violence which is only enforced by other men, reproduction rights, etc. If this system is to sustain itself, a large amount of men will also need to provided for, and that means sex (or maybe in a sci-fi future some sort of drug or simulation that mimics it in the brain, and releases the 'pressure'). Otherwise, one side of our artificial society is no longer balanced. >Sex is really only healthy where there is mutual love and at least some level of commitment; Sex itself is the goal for most men, at least primitively. The rest is just a bonus. > honestly i wish dang would ban these kinds of topics because we usually only get one side of them based on sort of an inhuman libertarianism; Typical. You've been able to express you opinions. I've been able to express mine. Censoring / banning speech is ridiculous, and should never be even considered by a company like YC who owes quite a bit of debt to the US system, which believes in free speech. If they want to start banning more and more speech, they can go set up shop in China or the UK.

by Noos 7y ago

golemiprague 7y ago

on one hand feminists claim men and woman are exactly the same , on the other hand you say here that a woman having sex with a man is "surrendering herself". So which one it is, just so we can start the discussion on the same page. I don't know whether anybody have a right to anything, but what I do know is that the government enforce me to pay taxes to support a growing number of single mums who never had sex with me, they had sex with other people but from some reason I need to finance them instead of investing this money in my own children. So I wonder, if you can force me to pay for female sexual escapades and their spawns and the exciting guys they had sex with because I "didn't put the effort and have unrealistic expectations", why can't I have an agreed upon transaction, where i pay directly the woman who have sex with me? It seems that the effort I put into generating enough taxes is happily taken by all those women via the government and law enforcement, for that I am attractive enough. To be honest, I don't have much hope, today being an average white man who just go to work, share custody of his children and do all the regular duties is like being the worst criminal in the world, a person to be ridiculed and abused by all kind of interest groups. So I have learned the lesson, I just move my business and money to second world countries where the western feminist/racist/agist cancer didn't hit yet. Nobody is going to get my tax money if they don't want to give anything back, just extorting me and then spitting in my face. I'd rather give my money to south east asian hookers for having a drink with me than to taxes falling into the hands of all those blood sucking critters. I vote for the most extreme right wing parties I can, not because I support their agenda but in spite, because I feel like I am being screwed up by everyone. I am not even a boomer.

throwno 7y ago

Do you also apply this argument to economic inequality? No, you can't be the CEO, but if you "put in the time or effort to be the kind of man that can" make a living wage, then you don't need to demand socialism. Do low skill workers have an unrealistic expectation of wages? There's a job out there for everybody, you either have to improve yourself to get the wages you desire, or lower your standards. Who's the "inhuman libertarian"? I agree sex workers and their customers should be shunned, but by the same logic, so must socialism.

hiram112 7y ago

> No, men don't have a right to sex,... I would say men have a moral right to sex as much as women have a moral right to not be physically and sexually abused by men, at least in an advanced human society that we want. Naturally, evolution has left the sexes in an unpleasant predicament - look at higher mammals like chimps or great apes for the state we'd fall into without our societal boundaries. We're long past the point where we've 'artificially' propped up women to a pedestal that wouldn't be obtainable without men raising them up - the freedom to earn money regardless of actual production, safety against physical / sexual violence which is only enforced by other men, reproduction rights, etc. If this system is to sustain itself, a large amount of men will also need to provided for, and that means sex (or maybe in a sci-fi future some sort of drug or simulation that mimics it in the brain, and releases the 'pressure'). Otherwise, one side of our artificial society is no longer balanced. >Sex is really only healthy where there is mutual love and at least some level of commitment; Sex itself is the goal for most men, at least primitively. The rest is just a bonus. > honestly i wish dang would ban these kinds of topics because we usually only get one side of them based on sort of an inhuman libertarianism; Typical. You've been able to express you opinions. I've been able to express mine. Censoring / banning speech is ridiculous, and should never be even considered by a company like YC who owes quite a bit of debt to the US system, which believes in free speech. If they want to start banning more and more speech, they can go set up shop in China or the UK.