Your view on male virginity vs male use of prostitution

[Wolf18]

Yes, I agree. We should allow people to destroy their bodies and defile themselves and probably encourage others around them to do the same.

 

It won't have a negative impact on their life or work really... in fact, some drugs might increase work productivity. Sure, people may die sooner but, the world's over-populated anyway --- win-win. All those doctors that siphon the long-standing ill people will have to find a better profession --- maybe they can become druggies and forget about it all.

 

And for the people that get paranoid and crazy and threaten others, whose violent tendencies are enhanced and they have no *fear* of keeping themselves under control because it's okay if they're caught on drugs, we can just punish them harshly.

 

While we're at it, the death penalty should be legalized and let's go back to using nooses --- far cheaper. We don't need to worry about wasting money on corpses either... who cares at that point? Crime will be reduced anyway, so only few people will be taken out and tossed away in some death pit or whatever.

 

As for prostitutes? Yeah, they'll be trivial.

 

Yeah but you don't fix these problems with legislating against them, you fix them by addressing the social issues that lead to drug-use, drinking, men using prostitutes, and the death penalty. Perhaps you should address how over-worked Americans are (hence they drink to relieve stress), the fact that teenagers (when a large percentage of people become druggies) have too much idle time, very large allowances and lack parental control, address the fact that the advent of the pill and abortion means women can have sex with low lives from the Jersey shore without consequences instead of being monogamous with men who would be there for them and possible children if push came to shove etc.

 

If you're not willing to address the problems, then simply allow the less desirable but mandatory coping mechanisms to take place.

[Eeyore79]

I'm not telling women to date ugly or obese men, or drug addicts and degenerates, I'm telling women that sometimes the guy who isn't super gorgeous and is in their league can satisfy them as much or more than the guys who are.

I will admit that some women are incredibly shallow... however being in the same "league" doesn't guarantee attraction. I've been asked out by guys who were decent enough looking, but I just didn't find them interesting - those men subsequently found other women who were interested in them. In contrast, my bf was turned down by several women before he met me, but I found him really interesting despite the fact that he probably isn't as good looking as some of the guys I turned down previously.

 

No, but a solid guy whose decent looking should be more attractive than a "hot guy" with bart simpson hair and a 6 pack who has feces for brains. In my case, this is how I see women.

A lot of women (including myself) would find the solid guy more attractive. But we're perhaps the more sensible and quiet type of women, not the popular hotties. So if you think that all women want the "hot guy", maybe you're looking at the wrong sort of women - there are women who can recognize a decent guy when they see him, but they themselves may not be the hottest women.

[Eeyore79]

I figured women wanted a guy who could take care of himself, had friends/was friendly, was funny, and who was well rounded and intelligent. I had all of that. Unfortunately a guy has to take the lead in pursuing girls and asking for dates and such. I don't have enough confidence to do so. I never will.

I think this hits the nail on the head. Even if a woman is attracted to a guy, she usually won't approach him; she'll try to give off signals that she's interested and will wait for him to approach her. When I previously dated a virgin, I smiled and flirted for six whole months and he still didn't make a move, while I wondered if maybe he wasn't interested because I was being really obvious about my attraction and he wasn't responding. It turned out he was just incredibly shy - but a lot of women wouldn't have hung around waiting, they would have just gone off and dated another guy who did have the nerve to ask them out. If you're fun, smart, take care of yourself, then not approaching is probably your major issue with regard to not getting dates.

[OnyxSnowfall]

Yeah but you don't fix these problems with legislating against them, you fix them by addressing the social issues that lead to drug-use, drinking, men using prostitutes, and the death penalty. Perhaps you should address how over-worked Americans are (hence they drink to relieve stress), the fact that teenagers (when a large percentage of people become druggies) have too much idle time, very large allowances and lack parental control, address the fact that the advent of the pill and abortion means women can have sex with low lives from the Jersey shore without consequences instead of being monogamous with men who would be there for them and possible children if push came to shove etc.

 

If you're not willing to address the problems, then simply allow the less desirable but mandatory coping mechanisms to take place.

 

Sex/fertility treatments and surgery/medicine are the problems.

 

Reproduction and surgery/medicines that allow more people into this dying world and allow more people to linger on in this dying world... are what's wrong. People suck up the worlds' resources without contributing to much else besides making more people who suck them up.

 

Those that heed their environment and try to take care of it without being wasteful can never make up for the greedy selfish slobs that destroy it.

 

We have crazy people running around everywhere without a purpose --- most of them are replaceable --- we have people in countries raping and diseases one another but STILL reproducing because they're animals and they can't see how damaging their behavior is NOR could they imagine CONTROLLING themselves, GOD forbid they refrain from raping people etc.

 

Until we stop people from being able to reproduce and until we allow people to die natural deaths OVER-POPULATION WILL CONTINUE TO GROW.

 

WE FEAR DEATH

WE FEAR NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE SEX

SEX SOMEHOW MEANS WE CAN BE IMMORTAL AND ESCAPE DEATH

 

IT IS IRRATIONAL

 

LOL!!

[Wolf18]

No, she's a slut. Of course people should have the freedom to sleep with whoever they want, because it's a free country, but I reserve the right to think that anyone who sleeps around is a slut (or a man-slut) who I don't want to be involved with.

 

 

Taking advantage of a vulnerable woman who needs money is much worse than watching a video. Plus you can't catch diseases from videos. [/Quote]

 

Is it?

 

So it's ok if this so called vulnerable woman who needs money prostitutes herself on film? You realize that the porn moguls are no better than pimps, only they make money off women to the tune of billions.

 

If diseases are your biggest fear only sleep with virgins. You can get a disease from having sex with someone you know ONCE. I will bet anything that the majority of people who have STD's didn't get them from a prostitute.

 

I don't mind if a guy has slept with a few decent women whom he cared about. It only bothers me if he's slept around indiscriminately, and it bothers me even more if the woman didn't consent but was forced into it because she needed money. I don't think it's a harsh judgement to say I don't want to be involved with a man who took advantage of a vulnerable woman and risked his health in order to satisfy his sexual needs. [/Quote]

 

There is a risk with prostitution, sure. There is also a risk with driving a car. In fact, driving a car is far more deadly than visiting a prostitute, statistically speaking.

 

Just be honest. It's not about health. It's not about women's vulnerability. It's the fact that you think a man who uses a prostitute is a geek because "alphas" don't need to. It's really a matter of status, and you're pretending its about health. A guy has a better chance of catching an STD sharing a handkerchief with the average woman than he does at a regulated German brothel where women get STD checks once a week.

 

I don't fear prostitution. If my bf wanted to sleep with another woman, he wouldn't need to visit a prostitute - there are so many sluts around that he could probably just pick up a consenting female in a bar. I hate prostitution because it involves taking advantage of vulnerable women and carries a much higher risk of disease than just sleeping with a normal person. [/Quote]

 

Your boyfriend must be a very attractive man, because this isn't true for the average guy. I see all kinds of good looking , normal men out on the town trying to pick up plain janes, and they just don't put out for anyone. Atleast here in NYC that's how it is, with us every day guys they are as pure as the driven snow, but when the famous metal band comes to town they suddenly become huge sluts .

 

 

The value a man would derive from being in a relationship with me isn't sexual in any way. He could get sex from some slut in a bar any time he wants, without being in a relationship - he doesn't need to date me in order to have sex. The value I provide in a relationship is companionship, support and friendship, and we can share our lives together; of course he gets sex as well, but that isn't the main selling point.

 

Keep telling yourself that. If you didn't put out, most men would not want to be with you. It's just how it is. You watch too many movies or must live in Beverly Hills, because the sluts have a long list of standards you must meet to get in their panties.

[Queen Zenobia]

Yes, I agree. We should allow people to destroy their bodies and defile themselves and probably encourage others around them to do the same.

 

Why does every problem's solution have to be either a) ban it or b) encourage/subsidize it?

 

If someone legally owns themselves, which they do, why should it be anyone else's problem if they decide to do something possibly (probably) harmful to themselves? Otherwise you're saying the state ultimately owns the individual.

 

Yeah but you don't fix these problems with legislating against them, you fix them by addressing the social issues that lead to drug-use, drinking, men using prostitutes, and the death penalty. Perhaps you should address how over-worked Americans are (hence they drink to relieve stress), the fact that teenagers (when a large percentage of people become druggies) have too much idle time, very large allowances and lack parental control, address the fact that the advent of the pill and abortion means women can have sex with low lives from the Jersey shore without consequences instead of being monogamous with men who would be there for them and possible children if push came to shove etc.

 

If you're not willing to address the problems, then simply allow the less desirable but mandatory coping mechanisms to take place.

 

How one looks at this largely has to do with where they fall on the political philosophy debate. Fans of Hobbes will say we need a benevolent dictatorship (i.e. a nanny state) to take care of us and lead society. The Locke people largely believe that human beings are in a state of nature good and social and thus are capable of acting justly without the sate coercing them. So there you go.

 

I won't get into whether or not the pill helps women act irresponsibly in terms of our sexuality since it's largely been helpful of men too. No responsibility for children and sex generally feels better without having to use condoms.

[OnyxSnowfall]

Why does every problem's solution have to be either a) ban it or b) encourage/subsidize it?

 

If someone legally owns themselves, which they do, why should it be anyone else's problem if they decide to do something possibly (probably) harmful to themselves? Otherwise you're saying the state ultimately owns the individual.

 

Why is suicide illegal in many places? Is it because we own ourselves?

 

What about death with dignity? Most states are against that in US... why is that?

[Queen Zenobia]

Why is suicide illegal in many places? Is it because we own ourselves?

 

What about death with dignity? Most states are against that in US... why is that?

 

Because many people think suicide wrong and that the government's job is to protect morality. It's a misguided concept, the government's job (insofar that it exists in the first place) is to protect liberty not morality. If someone chooses to end their own life that's between them and their maker (and their family if they have one). So, in my opinion, the current setup (in regards to suicide laws and most laws in general) is fundamentally a state of serfdom/slavery.

[TheBigQuestion]

Ugly/fat/below average guys get into relationships and sleep with women all the time. I feel like anyone who doesn't see this happening with a decent amount of regularity is focusing far too much on their own failures to actually see what the world is like.

 

I've seen extremely good looking men with average women and vice versa. I've seen good looking people with other good looking people, I've seen ugly people with ugly people, I've seen short guys with taller women, I've seen obese men with good looking women, and every possible combination in between.

 

It's not hard to become decent at attracting women. I did it, and I was/am about as socially awkward as one can get without falling somewhere on the autism spectrum.

[Wolf18]

Why does every problem's solution have to be either a) ban it or b) encourage/subsidize it?

 

If someone legally owns themselves, which they do, why should it be anyone else's problem if they decide to do something possibly (probably) harmful to themselves? Otherwise you're saying the state ultimately owns the individual.

 

 

 

How one looks at this largely has to do with where they fall on the political philosophy debate. Fans of Hobbes will say we need a benevolent dictatorship (i.e. a nanny state) to take care of us and lead society. The Locke people largely believe that human beings are in a state of nature good and social and thus are capable of acting justly without the sate coercing them. So there you go.

 

I won't get into whether or not the pill helps women act irresponsibly in terms of our sexuality since it's largely been helpful of men too. No responsibility for children and sex generally feels better without having to use condoms.

 

I strongly dislike libertarianism, but America manages to combine libertarianism against my interests with statism against my interests. Consumerism, marxism and capitalism , all which dominate the loathsome American worldview (marxism socially, consumer capitalism economically) do nothing to advance but undermine my interests as a working class, traditional and spiritual 22 year old man.

[OnyxSnowfall]

Because many people think suicide wrong and that the government's job is to protect morality. It's a misguided concept, the government's job (insofar that it exists in the first place) is to protect liberty not morality. If someone chooses to end their own life that's between them and their maker (and their family if they have one). So, in my opinion, the current setup (in regards to suicide laws and most laws in general) is fundamentally a state of serfdom/slavery.

 

I agree to an extent. As for suicide/death laws, I think in many cases it also goes beyond upholding some idea of morality too though... (quite a bit of money can be used for hospice care, rehabilitation, etc... nevermind a potential tax payer and consumer being taken out).

 

But --- I think in regards to drugs, only specific drugs should be outlawed --- ones that are commonly known to cause mental break-downs and induce psychotic episodes wherein people are not capable of controlling themselves well. It just seems silly to provide such things to people and then either let them run wild, possibly whilst they assault others and or damage their belongings etc... and then put up with it or punish them for it... it just seems like common sense to NOT tolerate substances that have been widely known to destroy people and inflict those around them.

 

other drugs? Well, many of those are already "prescribed" and regulated. Of the safer ones that aren't... there is probably some foul agenda behind it, lol.

[Wolf18]

Because many people think suicide wrong and that the government's job is to protect morality. It's a misguided concept, the government's job (insofar that it exists in the first place) is to protect liberty not morality. If someone chooses to end their own life that's between them and their maker (and their family if they have one). So, in my opinion, the current setup (in regards to suicide laws and most laws in general) is fundamentally a state of serfdom/slavery.

 

"Liberty" is a masonic codeword for liberty to rob you . This is opening up a whole new can of worms but the truth is events that popularized this mode of thinking like the French revolution had nothing to do with liberty and everything to do with the upper middle class of speculators trying to break up feudal trade unions ("guilds") that had quality and price control standards that left the worthless merchants of France (who wanted to import junk and sell it for cheaper in the short term, then charge double the guild price for items half the quality when the guilds were put out of business) unable to maximize their profits.

 

I think the government should protect morality and people, but the problem is the way its currently set up, the government cannot adequately address these issues due to its lack of a spiritual path. The US government isn't working towards any moral goal and has no organizational center, it is just a corrupt bureaucracy of contradictions that picks and chooses its morality based on how much money can be made from it.

 

Liberty is an abstract concept that is impossible to achieve, how can the government protect it?

[udolipixie]

Yeah I did think that being attractive played a part.

Did you think it was minor part or not as big as a part of the others?

 

 

 

That's partly why I started working out getting muscles being athletic, etc. But I figured women wanted a guy who could take care of himself, had friends/was friendly, was funny, and who was well rounded and intelligent (basically he could have conversation with her too, not just sex all the time).

Most women want that if he's attractive as well.

 

As for muscles there's a point where a guy is too bulky for some women.

 

Well rounded and intelligent conversation it's actually amusing to think most modern young people do that...are you young?

 

I had all of that. Unfortunately a guy has to take the lead in pursuing girls and asking for dates and such. I don't have enough confidence to do so. I never will.

 

Yep confidence is usually key sine it's helpful in other aspect of life. If you have looks though you can slide on confidence in other aspects of life but even then dating still requires some of it.

 

Never? Therapy? Counseling? Affirmations?

You probably thought minor part or not as big as a part of the others.

 

 

I honestly have no idea how good I look. Some days I feel like I'm pretty good looking and some days I feel like I look horrible. One poster on here (a girl) said from my picture I looked pretty good/attractive. So I dunno.

At least it was positive. I think anonymous rating sites are more honest and harsh if you can stomach it.

 

 

What kind of other traits? I mean other than the fact that I'm slow to open up to new people and I get somewhat awkward around attractive single women I'd say I'm not completely off base in thinking I could get a girlfriend or that an attractive woman would also find me attractive.

Negatives:

Self esteem issues

Self worth issues

Confidence issues

Shy

Introvert

Awkward body movements

Socially awkward

 

Positives:

Confidence

Aggressive in the bedroom

Assertiveness

Decisiveness

Conversationalist...having intelligent and well rounded topics to talk about is good but I find most people can't converse well

 

Again, what makes up looks and attraction? I honestly don't know other than not looking like the elephant man and being in shape/muscular etc. and having some sense of style. Is that what you mean by attractive?

What makes it up attraction and looks is determined by the woman. It's an individual thing. She has her own individual preferences in looks and as for attraction different things turn on women. What I meant by attractive is an individual thing determined by the woman judging it.

 

For attraction some factors are common like excitement and interest.

 

For look some factors are common like healthy weight, height, hair, feminine facial features on a masculine face...odd yet it works according to studies

 

 

The only reason I don't approach or have confidence is because every time I try (not all that many times though to be honest) it ends up being a waste of time. After a while I just concluded that women had blacklisted me.

Defeatist attitude with some paranoia.

 

 

 

Except I wouldn't rape anyone so I can't be held responsible for what a very tiny minority of men might do (rape, harass, assault). Women have universally decided I'm not worthy to date, thus in relation to me they have the power and control.

Universally? That's the paranoia.

 

Sorry. I thought we were discussing power over an aspect of someone's life where one doesn't want a person in a position of power and control over an action one does not want to happen.

 

I guess the right comparison would be men finding me universally attractive and continuously bothering it for me. They have power and control of approaching me whether I want them to or not.

 

 

 

Except young men are in the majority in the U.S. Women have more choice than men do because of that.

So men can move from the US is they want more choice or dislike the fact that women now have choices so she doesn't have to settle for whatever is not terrible.

 

I see plenty of guys who complain about picky women in the US by when thy go overboard and have their options they're picky as well.

 

 

In another thread long ago I once asked another poster about this idea. She said it was a horrible idea that would be unfair to the girl (who wouldn't get authentic love) and/or result in me being taken advantage of. Do you think this would be a good idea for me to do?

No. Bolded parts show why.

 

Nah these girls are seriously headf*cked.

 

They won't be having an affair to risk the good relationship they traded their happiness for.

 

It's just dildos and thoughts of other men. Quite a sad picture that they think they have to sacrifice their attraction and sexual satisfaction to have a good relationship.

 

I do hope they will divorce these guys and find happiness and love with a guy who loves them.

 

 

 

Well I think I'd be willing to be a good lover and considering I'm in shape, I've got a good personality, I'm genuinely friendly and reasonably attractive, I'd like to think a girl would be lucky to have me not feel like she settled or compromised her ideals and got saddled with me. I dunno, being in my position doesn't exactly make me see things objectively.

Hopefully it can come true if you can work on the confidence.

[Queen Zenobia]

I strongly dislike libertarianism, but America manages to combine libertarianism against my interests with statism against my interests. Consumerism, marxism and capitalism , all which dominate the loathsome American worldview (marxism socially, consumer capitalism economically) do nothing to advance but undermine my interests as a working class, traditional and spiritual 22 year old man.

 

Fair enough. I will have to disagree though with the notion that America is in anyway a truly capitalist economy. There's an awful lot of non-capitalist policies.

 

But, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Eeyore79]

So it's ok if this so called vulnerable woman who needs money prostitutes herself on film? You realize that the porn moguls are no better than pimps, only they make money off women to the tune of billions.

Nope, it isn't ok. Most men don't contribute money to the porn industry though; they watch the free stuff online. I suppose I have more of a problem with the guy actually having sex with a dirty immoral woman such as a prostitute - just the fact that he's been in physical contact with someone so disgusting grosses me out. The fact that he's willing to have sex with a woman for whom he has no feelings just completely turns me off too - this applies to one night stands as well as prostitutes.

 

If diseases are your biggest fear only sleep with virgins. You can get a disease from having sex with someone you know ONCE.

Prostitutes who've been with hundreds of men are virtually guaranteed to be diseased; the chances of an average man or woman being diseased are much lower. So while it is possible to catch a disease from having sex with someone you know, it's much less likely that they'll be infected - your average prostitute is pretty much guaranteed to be infected.

 

There is a risk with prostitution, sure. There is also a risk with driving a car. In fact, driving a car is far more deadly than visiting a prostitute, statistically speaking.

The thing is, if a guy crashes his car and subsequently dates me, it doesn't affect me. But if he catches a disease and subsequently dates me, it does affect me. Also he wouldn't necessarily know if he'd caught something, and it's scary to think that he could unwittingly infect me.

 

Just be honest. It's not about health. It's not about women's vulnerability. It's the fact that you think a man who uses a prostitute is a geek because "alphas" don't need to. It's really a matter of status, and you're pretending its about health.

It is partly about health, and it's partly about him being someone who can detach sex from emotion, which is a trait that I find undesirable. It's also partly about him being dumb enough to not care that he's virtually abusing the woman. I don't know how he can get it out and put it in a woman whom he knows is unwilling and doesn't want it; it's virtually rape apart from the fact he gives her money. A man could be the most handsome alpha man in the world and I'd still be turned off if he used prostitutes. I don't think a man is a geek if he visits prostitutes; geeks are usually smart decent guys, while men who visit prostitutes are the exact opposite: dumb, weak, selfish men who see women as sex objects.

[Taramere]

It's not hard to become decent at attracting women. I did it, and I was/am about as socially awkward as one can get without falling somewhere on the autism spectrum.

 

That's quite hard to imagine. The social awkwardness. You seem to have a sense of humour and a pretty balanced and realistic outlook on life. I guess whatever awkwardness you feel you have doesn't translate online.

 

Because many people think suicide wrong and that the government's job is to protect morality. It's a misguided concept, the government's job (insofar that it exists in the first place) is to protect liberty not morality. If someone chooses to end their own life that's between them and their maker (and their family if they have one). So, in my opinion, the current setup (in regards to suicide laws and most laws in general) is fundamentally a state of serfdom/slavery.

 

That's a tough one. Twenty years ago, I didn't know of anybody who had committed suicide. Now, without even really thinking about it I can reel off four names. Other people I know have encountered a lot more. For some of them it's the drug culture in our area.

 

Of the four I know, one was drug related, one was desperation resulting from a financial predicament (that was a very recent one) and two were, as far as I'm aware, related to mental health problems which nobody really knew about. One had, on the face of it, everything going for him...but I think he was under a pressure (as a result of being in a profession he was intellectually but not temperamentally suited to) that nobody really appreciated.

 

I feel that often people really aren't in a clear frame of mind when they make that decision. On some levels they might seem rational, but if they're severely depressed it might have become impossible for them to see a way out. The notion of making it legal for others to assist them in taking their own lives is something I have a huge problem with. For the same reason that I generally have a problem with libertarianism (even though there are aspects of it I find intellectually compelling).

 

Human nature. Corruption in society.

 

The Locke people largely believe that human beings are in a state of nature good and social and thus are capable of acting justly without the sate coercing them.

 

That's optimistic. Whether it's realistic is another matter. Here's a story about what human nature can be like when people think they have freedom from being held accountable.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041193/Internet-trolling-Investigation-distress-grieving-families-caused-trolls.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

That's in people. It's in a lot of people. We know this because of the sheer volume of that kind of thing that goes on. People can be incredibly sh*tty, and somehow society has to reach a balance between giving them some rein to be sh*ts and protecting other people from the consequences of their behaviour.

 

What's the libertarian answer when people behave like that? Is it that the victims of their behaviour just have to harden up to it? I think that that's at the core of libertarian thinking...because although libertarians tout the "people should do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others"...the question of what causes harm to others often provokes very different viewpoints. Some people just won't buy the notion of psychological harm. They really will take the view that if trolls are running amok posting cruel comments on dead kids' memorial sites, then it's up to the parents to take those sites down or just not read them.

 

Likewise, there are people who would give little credence to the notion that families have a right not to be harmed by the existence of suicide clinics. Places that help to end the lives of those who don't feel like they can go on any longer. I think society has developed as it has precisely because whenever social codes and controls break down the consequences are too much for many to bear.

 

The other aspect of it is that from what I've seen, a lot of libertarians are educated people from middle class backgrounds and fairly nice families. Hence they're more inclined, perhaps, to subscribe to the view that people are basically good and will do good left to their own devices. It's a nice thought, but I really wouldn't want to see it tested out.

[Queen Zenobia]

"Liberty" is a masonic codeword for liberty to rob you . This is opening up a whole new can of worms but the truth is events that popularized this mode of thinking like the French revolution had nothing to do with liberty and everything to do with the upper middle class of speculators trying to break up feudal trade unions ("guilds") that had quality and price control standards that left the worthless merchants of France (who wanted to import junk and sell it for cheaper in the short term, then charge double the guild price for items half the quality when the guilds were put out of business) unable to maximize their profits.

 

I think the government should protect morality and people, but the problem is the way its currently set up, the government cannot adequately address these issues due to its lack of a spiritual path. The US government isn't working towards any moral goal and has no organizational center, it is just a corrupt bureaucracy of contradictions that picks and chooses its morality based on how much money can be made from it.

 

Liberty is an abstract concept that is impossible to achieve, how can the government protect it?

 

I wrote in another response that we would have to agree to disagree but I'll still respond to this.

 

The part that I bolded is largely true, which is why I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anarcho-capitalist worldview. Truth be told though even that kind of system would not be 100% effective at protecting liberties.

 

The fundamental question for Libertarians is: do you own yourself? If you do, why does the state have the power to tell you what you should or shouldn't do and have the power to coerce you to do things against your will? My definition of liberty which I think is rather firm is you have the right to do what you want with your life so long as you don't infringe on another's right to do so. Murder (in this sense) is wrong because you violated another person's right to live. It was a life you did not legally own. You can extrapolate that to other crimes to get the picture.

 

I do not dispute that morality does exist. My only issue is whether the government can or should be trusted with the ability to protect and enforce morality.

[Eeyore79]

Ugly/fat/below average guys get into relationships and sleep with women all the time. I feel like anyone who doesn't see this happening with a decent amount of regularity is focusing far too much on their own failures to actually see what the world is like.

I have to agree with this - I see a lot of fat/ugly men with partners. The men I see without partners aren't necessarily unattractive, they're usually just incredibly shy and have low self esteem. In fact I see some ugly men with partners while better looking shy men are single because they lack the confidence to approach women and the conversational skills to capture their interest.

[somedude81]

Or maybe he shouldn't have been so disgusting as to sleep with hookers in the first place? Any guy who does something so gross deserves to be judged by decent women who want a nice, clean, decent guy, not some morally bankrupt loser who sleeps with hookers.

ROFL!

 

So a man who unfortunately doesn't have the skills needed to attract women who turns to a prostitute for sex since no other woman would sleep with him; is a morally bankrupt loser. Good to know. Don't forget that he is disgusting and gross and deserves to be judged by "decent" women.

 

So what should those shy and low self-esteem men do? Just go without sex for the rest of their lives?

I know plenty of girls who think as long as the STD is curable guys don't need to be so judgmental.

 

 

They are choosing to lie/never admit to something that they know would affect a person's decision about them just because that factor may cause the decision to be negative.

Why are you equating a man who has been with a prostitute as somebody who has a STD?

[Queen Zenobia]

The other aspect of it is that from what I've seen, a lot of libertarians are educated people from middle class backgrounds and fairly nice families. Hence they're more inclined, perhaps, to subscribe to the view that people are basically good and will do good left to their own devices. It's a nice thought, but I really wouldn't want to see it tested out.

 

I'm not quoting your entire post because it would cause too much clutter I think.

 

While I am sympathetic to a state of anarchy, I'm not naive enough to realize that there are major limits to how effective such a society would be. One only need to look at Somalia, Afghanistan or Pakistan to see very good examples of such limits. My only concern about more robust government is that it allows those with the most resources to get that government to enact policies that give them a competitive advantage. Essentially the whole absolute power corrupting absolutely thing.

 

I honestly think the best solution to preventing tragic suicide (not simply someone who doesn't want heroic measures taken to save their lives) is for people to be more involved in the lives of their loved ones (spouses, children, relatives, friends, etc.). Obviously that's easier said than done and easier before the fact than after. My answer about suicide laws though was that it shouldn't be a "crime" to want to take one's own life. I can't comment on how to create a better system to deal with chronically depressed people because I honestly don't know. I know it's a cop out but I'd rather not lie and pretend like I had some kind of wise, enlightened idea.

 

And, yes, I did grow up in an upper middle class family (and an only child to boot) so I do recognize that I have a distinct advantage over other people. However, I learned about Libertarianism from my father who, while highly educated grew up dirt floor poor in a village in Syria. He had very little advantages but essentially came to his political/economic opinion due to the abuses and excesses of the Assad regime. My mother FWIW, grew up in Lebanon in almost the exact opposite situation (well off, but a failed state) and she's completely disinterested in politics.

[udolipixie]

No, but most men seem to think so.

Why that is should really be worked. My guess is society lies to them, people lie to each, and the man lies to himself.

 

I never said women shouldn't have attraction, I just think that saying "women can't help what they're attracted to" when they pass up perfectly good men is a cop out. I'm not telling women to date ugly or obese men, or drug addicts and degenerates, I'm telling women that sometimes the guy who isn't super gorgeous and is in their league can satisfy them as much or more than the guys who are. I'm not going to change them, but it's something I wish women would reflect on.

That sort of is suggesting that women shouldn't have attraction.

 

That's pretty much implying that by going so and so fits the basic look requirements for a human being or he's in the same league as you solidifies it. Whether you're attracted to him or not he can satisfy you.

 

By satisfy do you mean by resources? If so a job and overtime can do that as well.

 

By satisfy do you mean sexually? If so with the lacking attraction a dildo and some fantasies would be better.

 

Seems like the only winners there are the guys.

 

That's like telling ugly/average guys not to chase or want the attractive girls...not I said attractive not super gorgeous. Most women want the same attractive not super gorgeous.

 

 

 

Yes I am sure that they were in my "league", everyone else thought so except for them. I can show you photographs to compare in private if you would like.

Nah I trust you. Some people who are in the same league think they are too good to date those in their leagues. Plenty of ugly/average guys will conceded to sex with an ugly/average girl but not a relationship.

 

I have no problem dating a girl who brings to the table the same or even less than I do, the problem is that women will never feel that way. I'd easily prefer a an average cute girl with my interests and good conversation over any gorgeous model woman.

What about average without the cute?

 

I find when guys state average most can't help but add cute or pretty. Neither of those words are really average that's slightly above average.

 

 

What I say about women applies to men as well, but this is way more common among women. Most men because of pressing sexual desire, end up settling for whatever comes there way, women do not.

The desire is not more common in either gender it's the strength in that refusal to date someone you find unattractive varies by individual.

 

While most men settle I don't believe they settle for unattractive perhaps less attractive than they'd like but not unattractive where they feel no one emote of sexual desire.

 

 

 

A person who has a lot in common with you and is as attractive as you doesn't bring happiness or attraction? I disagree completely. It would for me. That is why i am so angry, it doesn't for women.

Yep you're angry because women don't work the same way as you do.

 

You're angry that they're different from you and may require different things from you.

 

That anger is probably intensified by the fact that not only may they require different things but that women are individuals and each of them may want different things.

 

You're not getting what you want and you're angry.

 

 

 

No, but a solid guy whose decent looking should be more attractive than a "hot guy" with bart simpson hair and a 6 pack who has feces for brains. In my case, this is how I see women.

How you see..not everyone is like you.

 

It's not that nice should compensate for everything, but it should give you an edge over the dirtbags.

Not if the dirtbags have the looks.

 

Remember human nature most people want looks.attraction & personality but if they had to chose one most would forgo personality and pursue looks/attraction.

 

It only gives an edge if you have more looks/attraction & personality combo than the dirtbag.

 

Nice, short, funny, bald guy vs confident, tall, exciting, attractive dirtbag

^ Most would pick the dirtbag because the combo of attraction & personality is better than the other.

 

 

 

These people treat their boyfriends really well, even if the boyfriends don't care. So one would assume that they could treat everyone like that, no?

Not me.

 

It's just like how girls assume that just because a guy is someone's boyfriend that means he's boyfriend material.

 

 

 

Most women think they are better than most men because horny, desperate guys blow up their egos.

On the blown up ego....yet for some reason...men more than think they look better than they do stat wise men overrate themselves more than women.

 

As for most women thinking they are better than men....yet men are the ones with this rising trend:

 

 

 

What's so bad about that? Women today have men just for having a vagina. Even the fat and ugly ones have something in the pipeline.

 

Not seeing the bad in that?

" Most of these types of guys are truly men who wish they could live in a time where they could get the type of woman they wanted for just having a d*ck. That they just picked out what they wanted because the truly don't want women to be individuals because individuals have opinions and some of those opinions my not be what serves your needs."

 

 

This tells me a lot. I now have more understanding of why you're in this situation.

 

What's bad about that is that these men are essentially advocating a power switch they want to be in what the position of power. It's not about forming a relationship with someone who wants you and who you want. It's mainly about having power and getting what you want with as least fuss and thinking whoever you get should be grateful to have you because you're you.

 

I don't know what individualism has to do with women wanting the same small group of men. I can tell you exactly what men has women and what man doesn't just by looking at them.

 

This tells me more about why you're most likely in this situation. You don't like that sometimes these individual desires merge to the same tastes:

 

This same small group of men are probably are tall, confident, exciting, interesting, and attractive along with some negative qualities that are overlooked.

 

It's not different from men wanting the same group of hot, attractive, and above average girls.

 

 

 

Men don't think that way anymore. Women have stripped us of our power via the government and now despise us for it. All you need to do is cry for help and you'll have swarms of men jumping to your defense (even if you're wrong).

Haha:lmao:

 

Plenty of nice guys and good guys have made this claim

"The rising numbers of average modern men who think they are superior creatures & masters of the universe simpply because they have d*cks and the men who created this civilization had d*cks too instead of. "

 

 

Actually the guys who think that way are the ones who get all the broads and girls like you find irresistable.

Nope in fact the guys there are plenty of love shy, incel, trueforced loneliness, and dating websites and forum with these types of me complaining about their lack of success with women.

 

Quite amusing and sad how some many guys claim to be nice guys yet can't see they're just jerks.

"The men who think that women are inferior and serve no other purpose but to deposit sperm in to and procreate and even that they are not needed for simply because they share d*cks with past great men and other great men.

 

The men who want to coattail on past great men and other great men actions rather than be judged for their own actions because hey since I've got a d*ck and we share the same genitals we should share the same praise. Yet these men whine and moan about the negative and awful past men and heinous mens actions being applied to them."

 

The jerks who get girls don't focus on this men are superior/coattailing stuff unless they're new to the game and old...like dinosaurs. Most jerks successful with women don't have don't have negative men are superior issues but rather character I am superior to you. Nothing to do with him being a male it's just about who he is. Also the character traits of his are negative-lying, cheating, manipulating...no bravado alpha male bs.

 

 

 

Yes of course everything is about the patriarchy and male power structure In reality, it's not about sex, it's about female companionship. Yes, I want female companionship. Maybe one day when you are in your 40's and you no longer have men lining down the block for you, you will know how vital opposite sex companionship is.

You don't see to know how vital it is either since you state what's so bad about this:

" Most of these types of guys are truly men who wish they could live in a time where they could get the type of woman they wanted for just having a d*ck. That they just picked out what they wanted because the truly don't want women to be individuals because individuals have opinions and some of those opinions my not be what serves your needs."

 

Not much female companionship in getting the woman you want because she wants you but simply because you have a d*ck. So simply put you get what you want and what she wants is irrelevant. That point is put in further by stating that the men don't want women to be individuals because individuals have opinions and some of those opinions may not be what serves you.

 

So essentially getting a woman you want because you have a d*ck not because she wants you and she is just a throwaway dozen that serves your needs. Hmmm....

 

In my 40s please I"ll look like I'm 19...thanks my genes good for looks and health.

 

LOL! Women aren't different in their tastes at all. They are all attracted to a typically overlapping pool of traits.

Women are different in their tastes some tastes may overalp.

 

Just like men are different in their tastes but some tastes may overlap...young, long hair, thin.

 

 

 

The typical man will have to take your advice then, because the traits women want are annoyingly rare outside of the movie set of True Blood.

Not for me.

 

Not for any of my friends.

 

The 5 girls I know who sacrificed attraction for a relationship weren't even looking for True Blood quality.

[Quiet Storm]

it bothers me even more if the woman didn't consent but was forced into it because she needed money.

 

Why do you assume that women prostitutes don't consent or are vulnerable?

 

There are some strippers and prostitutes that simply capitalize on the physical needs of men. Yes, some are abused or drug addicted, but some are just performing a service.

 

They have something that men want, and have CHOSEN to profit from that.

 

Many people exploit their own talents. Musicians, artists, massage therapists, hair stylists... they use their talents to make a living. Do you think that every singer likes singing the same exact songs night after night? Some nights they probably have to drag themselves on the stage, but they do it to pay the bills. Who says you have love your job?

 

To assume that all women are vulnerable or damaged because they make a choice that you would not make, is wrong. To assume they hate their jobs is wrong, too. They may be thinking "Look at that girl working eight hours to make $100. I can make twice that in an hour! She's sitting on a gold mine and doesn't even know it!"

 

Not everyone has sex for connection or romance. Some just have it for physical release. As long as both partners are aware of the others intentions, there is nothing wrong with having sex purely for physical release. It may not be your (or my) cup of tea, but it works for many people.

[GorillaTheater]

Prostitution should be legal, for all of the libertarian-esque reasons that are generally trotted out during threads like this, but that doesn't necessarily address "male use of prostitution", or more specifically, my use.

 

My problem is that I would want to get to know them. I'd be that annoying as hell John who wants to find out about their flawed souls and what drives them to lead such inexplicably complicated lives. And not at all because I want to change her. I just want to know who she is.

 

That's why I would never hire a prostitute. I'm married, but it's more than that. Even if I were single, I wouldn't do it. Why? Because I'd insist on getting to know her, and after that there would be only two possibilities: 1) I'd either like her, in which case the sex would be good but I'd feel even sh*ttier afterwards, or 2) I wouldn't like her, in which case the sex would be dull, and I'd still feel vaguely sh*tty afterwards.

 

Now I'm no prude or wimp. I have enjoyed a fair share of casual sex back in my day. But when I look back on my sex life, it is the sex with women I loved, or at least truly cared for, that I remember vividly and treasure. In honesty, I have a difficult time remembering the one night stands. And I don't remember any of their names. Seems kind of sad now.

[Eeyore79]

Why do you assume that women prostitutes don't consent or are vulnerable? There are some strippers and prostitutes that simply capitalize on the physical needs of men. Yes, some are abused or drug addicted, but some are just performing a service.

I think those who are just performing a service are vastly in the minority, and there's no way to distinguish them from the others; the only safe way is to stay away from all of them. Plus I don't see why a man would even want to associate with the sort of trashy woman who thinks it's ok to sell her body.

 

Not everyone has sex for connection or romance. Some just have it for physical release.

Yes, I know that many people just view sex as a physical release. A man who has sex with a prostitute obviously feels that way - that's one of the main reasons I wouldn't want to date him, because I wouldn't want to date someone who viewed sex as just a physical release.

 

So a man who unfortunately doesn't have the skills needed to attract women who turns to a prostitute for sex since no other woman would sleep with him; is a morally bankrupt loser.

The reasons for turning to a prostitute are irrelevant; it's still gross whatever the reason is.

 

So what should those shy and low self-esteem men do? Just go without sex for the rest of their lives?

I doubt if there is any man who is truly unattractive enough that absolutely no woman would date him. I see ugly fat men with women all the time. If shyness and low self esteem are your problems, then I think there are more productive ways to deal with that that having sex with trashy hookers. I imagine that it would make you feel worse anyway, since you'd feel that you had to pay for it because no normal woman wanted you. Plus it would still only be sex, not an emotionally fulfilling relationship, so it wouldn't solve the problem of being unable to relate to people. I think it would be far more productive for a man to work on his self esteem issues and try to have a real relationship.

[somedude81]

The reasons for turning to a prostitute are irrelevant; it's still gross whatever the reason is.

And that's why a man must never tell a woman unless he knows that she isn't the judgmental type.

 

I doubt if there is any man who is truly unattractive enough that absolutely no woman would date him.

Hi, I'm somedude81. I'm 30 years old and I've never been in a relationship. I've asked out plenty of girls, made emotional connections and mainly gone after women in my league.

 

Plus it would still only be sex, not an emotionally fulfilling relationship

Both men and women have a need for sex. It's part of being human. That desire is much stronger in men than it is in women.

 

it wouldn't solve the problem of being unable to relate to people.

Not being able to relate to people is not the issue. The issue is not being able to attract women and be able to get more than friendship out of them.

 

What would you think about a man who has male and female friends but for whatever reason, the girls just don't like him that way. What should he do?