Men's choice and preference - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Makhnov · 11-25-2010, 08:41 PM

Having been given the green light on this subject, I will say again that I promote prostitution as an alternative lifestyle against dating and monogamy. One of the common sentences I employ is "You need not subject yourself to vindictive, possessive hags".

For the purposes of communication, that sentence needs to have its meaning fleshed out. Once we get through that, there is a chance that the door of the discussion will be opened to more advanced topics.

Monogamous relationships exist to facilitate and promote the Mommy/baby social unit. They do not exist for the purposes of expanding and promoting the sexual choices of men. In many cases, dating jealous, single women will reduce your choices. Prostitution is a means of increasing your choices.

The alternative involves subjecting yourself to the following,

Women will interrogate your mercilessly, all while keeping everything about themselves as "incomprehensible secrets".
They will seize on every little opportunity to aggressively and meanly insult the person they are talking to.
They fly into Biting Sarcasm Mode out of the blue; where everything coming out of their mouths is a parody of something they hate or someone they think is ridiculous.
After successfully manipulating your behavior, they will not refer to this as manipulation, but instead say you are "growing as a person".
They will destroy men's lives in the service of their babies.
If she takes interest in a guy, and believes there is a possibility of a hookup, she will begin treating him like trash, in order to see if he leaves. This is a litmus test used by women to read men's motivations.
Later into the relationship, a similar tactic is deployed, but this time it is used to test his loyalty. All of this is in the strategy of extracting and mind-reading.
Women leverage the pervasive cultural ethos that men are dangerous criminals, and women are innocent bunnies. Thus he must "prove himself safe" in order for communication to continue. She is not genuinely in danger and genuinely interested in staying safe. Her motivation is to extract his entire life story without her having to reveal a single thing about herself. It is pure strategy.

I have been the target of these tactics so many times that I am no longer surprised by them. In fact, I expect women to do this, and without fail they all do them.

Women are not mesmerized by you. They are rarely interested in sex. What mesmerizes women are little children. It is the house full of babies that they want. This true motivation is always concealed, and concealed for purely strategic reasons. This topic alone can be expanded upon in book-length exposition, but I will refrain until relevant replies appear.

An honest suggestion for men: If it is sex you want, you need not subject yourself to jealous, possessive, vindictive hags. Prostitution is your means of increasing your choices. A business transaction will also better serve your preferences. You will not be subject to a forced negotiation about which particular sex acts are available to you and which ones she is "saving for her future husband". This negotiation somehow never takes place until 7 weeks into the relationship. With a woman who is selling services, this obviously happens much faster.

jewels · 11-25-2010, 08:53 PM

Wow, just wow.

Are you soliciting reactions, do you have a legitimate question or is this an educational program?

Plan9 · 11-25-2010, 09:00 PM

Let's talk about this whole mommy/baby unit and men's choice thing. I just remembered a particularly lengthy but fun forum rant and I'll post it here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fun Forum Rant

And the ugliest truth imo about our attitudes towards sexual openness and not being committed to relationships is that it seems to hurt women much more than men.

It seems like every other girl in her late 20s / early 30s is dying to settle down with a good guy and start a family, and more and more, guys are highly resistant to that - why should they commit for life (or realistically, 5-10 years) when they can potentially have fun in the dating world for much longer? Basically, the woman devotes the best years of her life hoping desperately that her man will settle down, propose to her, so she can live happily ever after with some semblance of security in this crazy world, and the man knows that even if he dumps her anytime before late mid 30s early 40s, he can still go out and date young, hot women and live a dating lifestyle even well into his 50s sometimes. Many women don't have that option. Even if men are not rich and not attractive, they can (and often do) just find some women looking to settle down and tell her the kinds of things she needs to hear (vague talk of future, etc) and then bam, he's got another girl he can string along for 2-3 years of good sex and then dump her when he gets bored. It seems like more and more, men have no qualms at all about this kind of sexual manipulation of women. After all, they've been practicing lying their way into a girl's pants ever since they were 16.

Women that want to have kids have it even tougher. Unless you go full stops, many have a hell of a time getting a man to settle down and have kids during prime birthing years. More and more, women are putting off childbirth to work on their careers, to wait for men to grow up and become financially stable so they can think family with him instead of just sex and fun. Which is fine as long as it's an informed decision, but I feel like women are not often aware of the full story. I think a lot of women think that after 35 fertility drops off a bit, but that's only the beginning. First of all, ask any obgyn, women over 35 are automatically high-risk pregnancies. They need c-section more often, they have pregnancy and birth complications much more often, and their risk of birth defects is through the roof compared to women in their 20s. I heard an obgyn say that risk of down's syndrome (severe mental retardation) skyrockets after 35 and especially 40. What's even more disturbing is that people sometimes deliberately lie about these risks, I suspect, because it interferes with their social agenda regarding the place of women in America. And I'm not saying we should go back to little house on the prairie or anything, but I'm saying the world has changed so much so fast and we automatically think we have the answers and are taking the right steps, but I see a lot of dysfunction that we're choosing to ignore because it means maybe we made some serious mistakes along the way.

Even when it comes to divorce, let's not pretend that a single mom with a child + child support is in an equal position to a man that simply has a child support payment. Again, when it comes to this, men get to easily ditch their families and move on, even leave the country and start over if their child support is too cumbersome. The man knows that his barriers to enter a new life and a new relationship are much much lower than a women's barriers.

So for people like [user name] below that like to gush about how great women have it now compared to men, yes in some ways, women have it much better than before in some areas, but to me they simply traded some problems in for others while men still have it great, or perhaps even greater then they've ever had it. Men basically traded in male legal privilege for unprecedented male sexual privilege.

...

sure a lot of men enjoy having that and naturally incline towards monogamy. I consider myself one of them. Certainly if every single man and every single woman in the world fit into my description, then we would have massive pandemic social dysfunction instead of merely noticeable, troublesome social dysfunction.

Did I actually attempt to generalize all people? No, of course not. Do you think when people describe the world of 200 years ago as women being property in loveless marriages, they are generalizing all women back then? Funny how you don't rush to point out that there were men that enjoyed having an intimate relationship in their lives 200 years ago. Perhaps that group of men doesn't fit as neatly into your social agenda, a defense of those practices that have created new problems for many women while freeing of them from other problems.

...

yes, I'm making generalizations, but don't you think saying "some men like having strong intimate relationships" is also a generalization and oversimplification that sweeps a real problem under the rug? Or do you really think the fact that some men like relationships means women have no right to complain that a new deck of cards has been stacked against them?

and I'm sorry you don't think men get to speak about the problems women face. I certainly don't try to silence women speaking out about men's problems... also, I would have no idea about what women know or don't know about fertility after 35 except that I've heard this from many women over and over about how the media message to put off having kids conspicuously ignores that these choices have real consequences. I never claimed to present any data, only my own experiences and the experiences of my friends. I recognize my own sexual privilege and I recognize the disadvantage it places on some women, but I don't pretend that women have no problem at all simply because some men like relationships.

...

I don't have data - this isn't a social phenomenon I'm studying or anything. I admit I'm bringing a personal, biased perspective that I can only really explain by sharing my anecdotes and generalizing, but I do think I'm accurately identifying a real social problem that exists today as a relatively recent problem born out of relatively recent social changes in our societies. I'm not saying they're irreparable and I'm not saying they are worse problems than the ones we left behind. Certainly, the condition of women is better in many ways than it has ever been, and I'm all for that. I just also think we also left behind some of the attitudes that helped build families and keep them together.

It seems like every other guy in his early 30s who is out there making money does not want to settle down. They are living the good life, swinging, enjoying as many women as they can for as long as they can and have no intention of limiting themselves to one woman. A lot of these guys have no qualms at all about stringing along a girlfriend who they have little intention of marrying while also sleeping with whoever they want on the side. I don't think these are a few anomalies - I think it's a direct product of a pervasive pickup artist culture that encourages men to manipulate women's insecurities in a perverse goal of portraying an image of alpha male. Yes I know a ton of decent family men. Good on them. Those are my friends. I don't typically associate with scumbag guys that only put on the appearance of faithfulness and integrity while lying and manipulating women that are looking for a life partner. However, I know too many that do that anyway, or at least don't think it's any kind of big deal. From a young age, men are subjected to this sort of macho culture of sexual conquest and many guys seem to never grow out of it.

So I'm not saying that men are all driven to avoid monogamous relationships, but I am saying that many men do it, partly because of a culture of sexual conquest, partly because of media messages that reinforce it, and (where I started this conversation) partly as a result of unprecedented availability of women's bodies. Once upon a time, you had to commit to a woman for life before you took her to your bedroom, and that commitment was your bond. While it does cause a lot of problems, I respect the integrity behind that. And in the dating world today, there is still a facade of finding a life partner, but I think a lot of men don't take that seriously while a lot of women do - yes, I'm heavily generalizing, but there really does seems to be a lot more 30-something guys playing the field than 30-something women playing the field. The men high-five each other and admire each other's many sexual conquests, while women are left alone, even tragically mocked for crying, "you told me we would be together forever!" The man's reaction is often as callous as, "who takes those kinds of words seriously?"

Forgive me for prying, but you do have kids and appear to be in a happy, loving relationship. Good for you. I am in a similar life right now and I'm happy and grateful for what I have, but I do feel like a lot of women regret not focusing on settling down in their 20s, and it seems to be happening more and more.

I settled down earlier, but that's because I always wanted to get married and have a family. I'm one of the guys you would describe as enjoying having a strong intimate relationship in their lives. I'd like to think I would have been like this in 2010 or 1810.

Despite that, this is somewhat personal for me. I have a sister, early 30s, would love to have settled down and started a family by now but she first went to medical school, then a 5 year residency, now starting a one year fellowship. Sure she is set financially and academically, but she's quickly running out of time to find a decent guy who is genuine, honest, not playing the field, while still remotely in the same intellectual ballpark as her. Does a guy her age feel the same kind of time pressure? Not even close. He's got at least another 5-10 years of playing the field and even more if he so chooses, at the end of which he could probably marry some girl in her mid 20s ready to have kids, but if my sister wanted put up with that or live a similar lifestyle, it has serious implications for her ability to have kids and a family. When she was 22, applying for medical school and making other serious life decisions, that information was not as readily available to her. She might have taken more serious steps to have kids during school or before if she knew then that waiting so long to think about family would mean sifting through drastically increased incidences of douchebaggery in men as well as drastically increased risk of birth defects.

I also can't help but overhear the many Monday-morning tales of the dating world shared among my female 30-40something coworkers who are divorced (and/or perpetually single) and dealing with jerks playing the field, stringing them along, then suddenly deciding at age 38 they want to grow up, settle down, and go and marry some 26 y/o girl that wants a family. By and large, women don't get to make that same decision. Inequality at its finest.

I don't really think I'm being all that patronizing either. These basic questions like pregnancy and child-rearing responsibilities affect every part of women's lives as well as women's ability to equally participate in the workforce (I'm a lawyer, and you can count the women that have had kids and made partner). Indra Nooyi, famed CEO of Pepsi, is quite clear on the discrepancy - you can basically choose to be a good mom or have a good career, not both.

I guess if I could tl;dr this post, I would simply say, women's lib has been fantastic for about a thousand reasons, but let's be real that many family decisions, relationship decisions, and the dating world generally, has the ugly unintended ability to hurt women more than men. Now that I scroll up, that was my first sentence in this thread and I guess I still feel the same way. What really set me off was [user name] saying that a common relationship pitfall is to think that the relationship is permanent. That really pissed me off. I mean, we know that's what the dating world has become, but nobody likes to admit that when [user name] says that, he's mostly saying that to women. The dating world as it is today is unprecedented sexual privilege for men. I would hate that someone tell my sister that she should put up with him for 2-3 years and if she's lucky, he'll marry her instead of dumping her consequence-free for another girl. For her there are real consequences, and men are increasingly unwilling to own up to them.

Sorry for the Host-style repost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

Wow, just wow. Are you soliciting reactions, do you have a legitimate question or is this an educational program?

No worries. I can make this work.

jewels · 11-25-2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

No worries. I can make this work.

Why would I worry? This is a comedy relief piece, right?

I'm sorry, but it seems that the women you've dated come from a place I haven't seen. Or are you somehow giving a vibe that attracts a specific type of woman?

Willravel · 11-25-2010, 09:19 PM

No offense, but you know exactly nothing about women. I won't pretend to be an expert, but I've been able to deduce quite a bit about women from my experiences, and I can tell you a few things:

1) Many, if not most women certainly are interested in sex. They may not be interested in precisely the same way as most men, but it's a lot closer than people suppose. Women like the physical pleasure of sex, they enjoy the intimacy and that special connection that comes from the combination of healthy sexual physical and emotional attachment. Not only that, but they can get worked up into a frothy sexual mess when they want to and when they're properly stimulated, to the point of, as you say, mesmerization. This is not some massive conspiracy to trick men into helping them procreate, but rather a natural biological urge, virtually identical to the urge men have.

2) While many women do have a strong biological urge to procreate, it's a part of a larger set of innate and environmental factors which make up a woman's attitude towards sex. It's not JUST baby-making. It's not even JUST monogamy.

3) Men, such as myself, are naturally not only capable of monogamy, but some of us even prefer it strongly. I've not been reprogrammed by society or something, I want to be a father and be a part of a stable, healthy family unit. I had it before and I consciously recognize that, for me, it's a better living situation than being a cocksman (sexually active bachelor).

4) Finally, your generalization that all women are kiniving, manipulative, hateful, selfish baby machines is incredibly offensive and simply untrue. The most caring, selfless, loving, empathetic people I know are women. Not that the men I know aren't, but I happen to know women who prove your hypothesis wrong. Jewels, in fact, is an example of a caring, intelligent, non-manipulative, strong, independent woman. She proves you wrong.

Oh, and I've never had to pay for sex before. Why would I want to pay money for something I get for free?

Plan9 · 11-25-2010, 10:34 PM

I miss that The Fuck (TM) guy. I wish he would have stuck around longer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

Why would I worry? This is a comedy relief piece, right?

Exactamundo. My forte. I take this kind of sophomoric misogyny to a whole new world of retarded.

...

And I already know the problem: The whole issue with the OP is that he hasn't found a girl that'll do anal.

I've got a coworker in the same boat. "Dude, she won't let me put it in her butt without a wedding ring first."

cadre · 11-25-2010, 10:36 PM

Don't feed the troll guys...

Just sayin.

What I take from this is you have had bad luck with women or you illicit this attitude from your partners. Maybe an attitude adjustment would help you attract a better partner.

levite · 11-25-2010, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhnov

Having been given the green light on this subject, I will say again that I promote prostitution as an alternative lifestyle against dating and monogamy. One of the common sentences I employ is "You need not subject yourself to vindictive, possessive hags".

For the purposes of communication, that sentence needs to have its meaning fleshed out. Once we get through that, there is a chance that the door of the discussion will be opened to more advanced topics.

Monogamous relationships exist to facilitate and promote the Mommy/baby social unit. They do not exist for the purposes of expanding and promoting the sexual choices of men. In many cases, dating jealous, single women will reduce your choices. Prostitution is a means of increasing your choices.

The alternative involves subjecting yourself to the following,

Women will interrogate your mercilessly, all while keeping everything about themselves as "incomprehensible secrets".
They will seize on every little opportunity to aggressively and meanly insult the person they are talking to.
They fly into Biting Sarcasm Mode out of the blue; where everything coming out of their mouths is a parody of something they hate or someone they think is ridiculous.
After successfully manipulating your behavior, they will not refer to this as manipulation, but instead say you are "growing as a person".
They will destroy men's lives in the service of their babies.
If she takes interest in a guy, and believes there is a possibility of a hookup, she will begin treating him like trash, in order to see if he leaves. This is a litmus test used by women to read men's motivations.
Later into the relationship, a similar tactic is deployed, but this time it is used to test his loyalty. All of this is in the strategy of extracting and mind-reading.
Women leverage the pervasive cultural ethos that men are dangerous criminals, and women are innocent bunnies. Thus he must "prove himself safe" in order for communication to continue. She is not genuinely in danger and genuinely interested in staying safe. Her motivation is to extract his entire life story without her having to reveal a single thing about herself. It is pure strategy.

I have been the target of these tactics so many times that I am no longer surprised by them. In fact, I expect women to do this, and without fail they all do them.

Women are not mesmerized by you. They are rarely interested in sex. What mesmerizes women are little children. It is the house full of babies that they want. This true motivation is always concealed, and concealed for purely strategic reasons. This topic alone can be expanded upon in book-length exposition, but I will refrain until relevant replies appear.

An honest suggestion for men: If it is sex you want, you need not subject yourself to jealous, possessive, vindictive hags. Prostitution is your means of increasing your choices. A business transaction will also better serve your preferences. You will not be subject to a forced negotiation about which particular sex acts are available to you and which ones she is "saving for her future husband". This negotiation somehow never takes place until 7 weeks into the relationship. With a woman who is selling services, this obviously happens much faster.

I have to be brutally honest: for me, the two clear messages that I get out of this post are:

1. You've dated the wrong women. Exclusively. Before being married, I had my share of relationships, and what you've described above does not resemble in any way anyone I've ever been with. It doesn't even describe anyone I've ever been interested in. Or most girls I've even known well.

2. It sounds like you are profoundly uninterested in serious relationships. By which I mean, relating to a person as a partner, coming to know and value them at a deep emotional and spiritual level, experiencing sex as part of an array of interactions that bring you to complex and sophisticated bonding with another human being.

And if #2 is correct, as it sure looks to be, that might be fine. Personally, I think that experiencing sex isolated instances of physical gratification (as in, for example, regularly purchasing the services of a prostitute as a lifestyle choice) is not particularly emotionally or spiritually healthy. But of course, that's your own business. What I think may be a little unclear here, though, is that I am not at all certain that many other men share the views you have described here, much less the solution that you propose as resolving them.

Granted, it certainly does sound like you've found some disastrously issue-ridden women to date, for which you have my sympathy. But I think that for others, who may not have had such a uniformly negative set of experiences with women, there is a desire for relationships that provide a more nuanced and complex spectrum of interactions: something that involves heart and soul, as well as genitals.

I am not suggesting that there is something absolutely objectionable about prostitutes or prostitution. I have long been a big supporter of legalizing prostitution, and the rights of sex workers. And if I knew that a person of my acquaintance had been with a prostitute, I would not think less of them for it. But I think that an entire lifestyle, even a supplementary lifestyle, based on the purchase of sex as a commodity abstracted from emotional and spiritual interaction is unhealthy, and not conducive to promoting either self-worth or valuation of others as individuals.

I think that if you are truly unable to find someone relatively mentally stable and emotionally healthy to have sexual relationships with, it's better to just masturbate than to have meaningless physical gratification with someone for money. And that's not a judgment of sexual morals, but of psychological and spiritual wholesomeness.

To use an analogy, prosititution is like eating the food at county fairs. There is not necessarily anything wrong with deep fried twinkies or mars bars, and funnel cakes, and refried corn dogs. Those can be fun treats when you're at the fair. But it would be unhealthy to make them your regular diet. Not only would you be doing your arteries a grave disservice, but you would be ruining your palate for all the real, fresh, gourmet foods that are out there; so that if presented, let's say, with an exquisitely delicate Japanese miso soup, your palate would be so sugar-fogged and grease-logged that you would miss all the grace and nuanced flavors of the soup.

Visiting a prostitute once, or a couple of times, or even a few times in one's life might be perfectly reasonable, depending on context. Doing so might not adversely affect one at all. But making a lifestyle out of prostitutes, rather than trying to find and cultivate serious relationships with non-sex-professional women will, I think, lead to devaluing the meaning of the sex act. Sure, sex is satisfying physically, and can be fun, and casual. But it can also be so much more. And if the rest of that spectrum of experience is dropped and left untouched, it will ruin your sexual palate. Plus, I think that a lifestyle of nothing but interactions with women as purveyors of a commodity will result in a gradual devaluing of women in your mind.

No, this does not seem like a good idea to me.

My advice to you is to seriously re-evaluate what women you are attempting to engage with. It might potentially profit you to have some dedicated time, in therapy or just in disciplined introspection, to ask yourself why you seem to seek out women who are so controlling and manipulative. But you should also, I think, ask yourself about your own behavior, your own past and experiences, and why you are so focused on sexual gratification without emotional or spiritual partnering, why you seem to be someone reluctant to share himself with others, and why you seem to see interpersonal relationships as so threatening and competitive.

MrFriendly · 11-26-2010, 03:55 AM

I having nothing articulate to say, apart from women are pretty freakin rad.

Sounds like you got a few daemons to fight bro.

robot_parade · 11-26-2010, 08:11 AM

Hrm. Any chance that your past relationship problems had anything to do with your own behavior?

mcgeedo · 11-26-2010, 08:55 AM

I visited the OP's profile, out of curiosity. The OP is a case study in misogyny, to me. I was just fascinated by it. I may respond later, but I may not; it just seems futile.

Anyway, when I visited his profile, I was struck by the irony of the profile status message: "Makhnov hasn't made any friends yet."

mixedmedia · 11-26-2010, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

Hrm. Any chance that your past relationship problems had anything to do with your own behavior?

lol, right.
It's kind of amazing that someone can spend thirty minutes or so writing all that shit down while not realizing that they're perpetuating the tired, old, self-interested, fucked-up male stereotype that would seem to be the perfect match for a vindictive, possessive hag.

Cimarron29414 · 11-26-2010, 09:13 AM

I want to post a retort, but just don't have the energy. You sound like you have it "all figured out." Here's to long life - may yours be exceptionally long.

jewels · 11-26-2010, 11:16 AM

I guess the troll's done his work. His lead-in post suggested a conversation about prostitution, which has been done here but is, at least, interesting.

But the fact that he's chosen a forum such as TFP which is obviously as open and sexual as they come (porn-exclusive sites don't count) to create a female-bashing post with no question or intent stated is intensely suspect.

If you're lurking, what were you hoping to accomplish? Are we ready for the "more advanced topics" yet?

By any chance, are you related to the sociopath?

Plan9 · 11-26-2010, 11:25 AM

Now, Jewels... there is a perfectly good follow-on discussion spark that I attempted to fan with my TL;DR post that everybody skipped over.

Do you think any of that is true? I tend to see a lot of those generalizations manifest themselves in my peers these days. It's very bipolar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

Anyway, when I visited his profile, I was struck by the irony of the profile status message: "Makhnov hasn't made any friends yet."

Wait, what?

*looks at his own profile*

I'm... so alone.

jewels · 11-26-2010, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

Now, Jewels... there is a perfectly good follow-on discussion spark that I attempted to fan with my TL;DR post that everybody skipped over.

Do you think any of that is true? I tend to see a lot of those generalizations manifest themselves in my peers these days. It's very bipolar.

Wait, what?

*looks at his own profile*

I'm... so alone.

You know I love you, BUT I get the feeling he's not looking for conversation.

Not alone.

Plan9 · 11-26-2010, 11:35 AM

Well, I'm looking for conversation. And seeing that you and I are sitting here twiddling our thumbs, shall we dance?

Very rarely do I feel as if a "troll" can dump its toxic waste here on TFP without it turning into fertilizer for a beautiful flower.

Or, ya know, at least a really good one-liner that leaves us all going THBHBHTHBHBBHTT! for the next decade.

jewels · 11-26-2010, 11:42 AM

Heading out to work now, but a quick cha cha would be nice.

Cha Cha - Chelo | Music Video | VEVO

ring · 11-26-2010, 12:09 PM

I read your post, niner.
I did not read the OP past, 'possessive hags'

What parts of your post do you agree or disagree with?
I'm way way past child bearing age & never experienced the urge for babies.
The settling down part, yeah.

& Levite's post is full of good wise advice.

Have a nice day at work, Jewels.

Okay, where were/are we?

Makhnov · 11-26-2010, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhnov

Monogamous relationships exist to facilitate and promote the Mommy/baby social unit. They do not exist for the purposes of expanding and promoting the sexual choices of men.

Not a single post within the 17 replies so far have addressed either one of these sentences.

The enumerated list which I gave is not "what some women do or some particular personality type engages in" - no rather this list of items is precisely what "having a relationship" means. These behaviors are what a relationship is. Men in this thread who deny these items are simply in a state of willful denial.

What I call modern "Post-Feminist" Society has an entire cultural, legal, and often "biological" architecture. And all aspects of this I have already argued ten different ways on ten different forums. (Doubtlessly, we may need to re-hash all these botched arguments again, here, in order to get everyone up to speed.) I have seen numerous forums where the guys get all fuzzy-wuzzy with each other about relationships and they say things like "You don't choose women. Women choose you. And once you realize that, things will get better in your life." It is simply nauseating to watch. They are basically converting each other into little subordinate lapdogs in front of my eyes.

Post-feminist society turns men into little dogs in a Doggy show, who pretty themselves up in vying for attention from Female Masters. They willfully turn themselves into dogs begging for sex treats, whenever their Mistress decides to toss them one.

I have the utmost respect for men here who have chosen the life path of a monogamous partner, or who have chosen the life path of a father. I wish you and your family all the best. Apply your energy and time to your life, and live it fully; live it successfully. Godspeed to you. But be forewarned. I am not here at this forum to talk to you. I have already made my decision about where my life is going. Your future attempts at proselytizing me will be ignored.

I am here to find other men who travel for the purposes of buying services. I am active on a variety of other forums related to that. All of this subject matter must be brought up in attempt to highlight those men who are sympathetic of the message, and to inoculate the conversation of fathers and other romantics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

If you're lurking, what were you hoping to accomplish? Are we ready for the "more advanced topics" yet?

Sex tourism is real, and it is a thriving business. I have yet no indication from the posts that I should begin discussing specifics. If you think this thread is "troll", I will point out that I had politely checked with the mods before tabling this topic.

Willravel · 11-26-2010, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhnov

Monogamous relationships exist to facilitate and promote the Mommy/baby social unit. They do not exist for the purposes of expanding and promoting the sexual choices of men.

This is an oversimplification to the point of being dishonest. Monogamous relationships exist to facilitate emotional fulfillment, interpersonal growth, and a healthy environment not only for children, but in general. Oh, and not using condoms is fucking awesome.

mixedmedia · 11-26-2010, 01:02 PM

Of course, the fact that 'sex tourism' willfully rests on the exploitation of young men and women who are sold, given, taken by others has no bearing on the topic. Sorry, but your need to ejaculate inside another human is a pathetic excuse for rationalizing that industry.

Legalizing/legitimizing/standardizing prostitution would radically change your practice of buying sex. You realize that don't you?

It's bullshit. You don't want anything to change. You just want to be told that your choices are ok.

ring · 11-26-2010, 01:05 PM

"I am here to find other men who travel for the purposes of buying services."

That, is not going to happen here.
Take your hate speak against women..the fuck outta here.

filtherton · 11-26-2010, 01:56 PM

I'm pretty sure monogamy exists solely as a means for gay men to obscure the nature of their sexuality. Pretty sure anyone who doesn't agree with me is either a closeted homo or delusional.

mixedmedia · 11-26-2010, 02:25 PM

Why is it that so many men who fancy themselves to be 'consumers of philosophy' are instead narcissistic, misogynistic assholes with compulsive sexual needs?

I know there are a lot of philosophy nerds here (forgive my euphemism), so this is not a universal observation, just one that I have gathered through strictly empirical observation.

There seems to be a tendency amongst some of those that I've had the misfortune to come in contact with to cover their self-indulgence with a glean of philosophical authority. Anyone else ever observe this?

ring · 11-26-2010, 02:44 PM

Yes, I have noticed that also.
Cloaking their true agenda inside some jargon that 'sounds' just philosophical enough to gain an audience ..etc.

Ayn Randitis.

SirLance · 11-26-2010, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

There seems to be a tendency amongst some of those that I've had the misfortune to come in contact with to cover their self-indulgence with a glean of philosophical authority. Anyone else ever observe this?

Yes, I think it's part and parcel to narcissism.

Frankly, I find the original post offensive and misogynistic. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a happily married monogamous male. I can be an asshole at times, and she can be a bitch at times. It's just human nature. We're also very kind, intelligent, wonderful people most of the time. But our relationship is both fulfilling and mutually beneficial in a variety of ways. It wasn't for procreation (we were told we couldn't have children, something about ovarian reserve), but we miraculously wound up procreating anyway.

Sorry, I digressed there for a minute. I just don't agree with any of it, I think it's either the product of deep seated anger from a past relationship or a serious Oedipus complex.

MSD · 11-26-2010, 03:01 PM

It's good to see you, Sigmund, I thought you had died in 1939.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

There seems to be a tendency amongst some of those that I've had the misfortune to come in contact with to cover their self-indulgence with a glean of philosophical authority. Anyone else ever observe this?

As my father always said, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bullshit." Misogynists hide behind walls of philosophical bullshit just like that pedophile we had a few months ago who tried to rationalize it with his occultism. Those who hold morally indefensible views are frequently those who provide the most voluminous justifications.

Baraka_Guru · 11-26-2010, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Why is it that so many men who fancy themselves to be 'consumers of philosophy' are instead narcissistic, misogynistic assholes with compulsive sexual needs?

I'll venture to guess that it's because most of them have completely overlooked Kant. One cannot hope to approach modern philosophy with any semblance of coherence having overlooked Kant. I think the OP should read Kant. Failing that, a "shortcut" of sorts would be just to jump into Habermas.

The narcissistic, misogynistic (and often misandric) sexual compulsive who rhymes off philosophical tidbits rehashed by their personal prejudices likely do so only after having a pick-and-choosefest of the "stuff" they liked best, which is likely the stuff that feeds into their desires---the arrangement of which is formulated by their skewed worldview. It's the kind of guy who, if they aren't going to approach philosophy in a fair and balanced way as a detriment of their condition/situation, then they should just stick to listening to death metal and/or gangsta rap to commiserate with something. It's much simpler.

It's the same kind of guy who doesn't realize that Fight Club is a scathing satire, not a source of desirable life philosophy.

I'm not sayin' that the OP is this kind of guy. I'm just sayin'....

One cannot even hope to take the idea of "post-feminism" seriously beyond it as a mere misunderstanding of feminism. (It is my observation that most people don't get it.)

I won't even go into sociology or psychology.

levite · 11-26-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhnov

The enumerated list which I gave is not "what some women do or some particular personality type engages in" - no rather this list of items is precisely what "having a relationship" means. These behaviors are what a relationship is. Men in this thread who deny these items are simply in a state of willful denial.

....

I have the utmost respect for men here who have chosen the life path of a monogamous partner, or who have chosen the life path of a father. I wish you and your family all the best. Apply your energy and time to your life, and live it fully; live it successfully. Godspeed to you. But be forewarned. I am not here at this forum to talk to you. I have already made my decision about where my life is going. Your future attempts at proselytizing me will be ignored.

I have a suspicion that what this translates out to is that you're not here to talk to anyone here, then...except for you.

I'm sorry that you are experiencing such a complete sense of disconnection from healthy relationships and social maturity. And I say that with genuine sympathy, not dismissively. You must be very lonely and angry. But the fact that you perceive everyone here as in denial should be a clue for you that your perception of the reality of women and relating to them is so far from the norm that it is not merely alternative or rebellious, but simply beyond the pale of reason.

Because you can spin your point any way you like it, but it still essentially boils down to a stew of psychological dysfunctions and misogyny. Doesn't mean I will try to talk you out of it. You've made your decisions about how you want to live your life. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us can't acknowledge that the choices you describe are unhealthy, misfounded, and aesthetically unpleasant.

sbscout · 11-26-2010, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

lol, right.
It's kind of amazing that someone can spend thirty minutes or so writing all that shit down while not realizing that they're perpetuating the tired, old, self-interested, fucked-up male stereotype that would seem to be the perfect match for a vindictive, possessive hag.

MM, you are officially my hero!

robot_parade · 11-26-2010, 05:30 PM

From my point of view, Makhnov, you're mixing two very distinct subjects. I think most of us here are focusing on your misogyny, because it's so blatant and over the top, but a couple of people have responded to your point about prostitution. Personally, I don't have an ethical problem with prostitution, so long as there's no victimization. Unfortunately, I think the evidence is pretty solid that a large percentage of prostitution does involve victimization, especially the sex tourism you refer to. If we take prostitution as simply an exchange of intimate services for money, I'm ok with that, and honestly thing it would be fun. Doesn't seem that different to me than paying for a massage, for instance. That is, assuming I weren't in a monogamous relationship, and that prostitution is illegal.

Unfortunately, prostitution much (perhaps most) of the time it involves the victimization of another human being. Personally, this puts it off-limits to me for ethical reasons, unless I were reasonably certain the exchange were made without coercion. Unfortunately, a fair amount of porn probably falls into the same ethical problems, and Rosy Palmer and her five sisters can attest that I make use of that quite a bit...so I'm not exactly the symbol of ethical purity on that count.

Now regarding the rest of your post...I'm seeing what I think is a bit of a logic problem in your arguments. If I understand you correctly, you claim that the very concept of a monogamous relationships are structured purely for the woman's benefit, and that women are manipulative in the extreme to control the men in these relationships. And yet you say you have the utmost respect for those men who chose to be in them. This doesn't make sense to me - you have respect for men that allow themselves to be crassly manipulated by the women in their lives, when "They willfully turn themselves into dogs begging for sex treats..."? How does that work, exactly.

Now, I think there's a bit of truth to some of the things you say. There are certainly lots of examples of women manipulating men with sex, just as there are lots of examples of men abusing women. What you seem to be arguing seems to me to be the exact mirror of a stereotypical rabid feminist arguing that 'all men are rapists'. In other words, I think you're generalizing your personal, negative, experience to every woman and every relationship between men and women.

mcgeedo · 11-26-2010, 05:39 PM

OP seems a little ticked that no one has engaged him in his commentary and has just dismissed him as a troll/misogynist. I have a thought or two on some of the topics that he's raised.

I believe that there are two parts to fundamental human behaviors. There's the part that is based on the evolution of the species. It's a success trait for the species for a woman to be interested in establishing a stable relationship. That's also a success trait for a man since it's his offspring that benefit. There's probably a competing instinct to spread genes. That's most likely true for men and (I read somewhere) also a benefit to a woman in the context of genetic diversity. A balance seems to have developed between these two instincts, favoring a stable relationship.

Then there's the part of behavior that is learned as opposed to instinctive. It's important to remember that the species hasn't evolved all that much in several thousand years. Culture and civilization are relatively new to us, but we are essentially the same as we were 8 or 10 thousand years ago, before any vestige of civilization developed. The difference between then and now is the body of collective knowledge, expressed in willful behavior as opposed to instinctive.

The OP would like, I think, to justify his choices and desires by ignoring the second part and at least part of the first part. In short, whatever it takes in order to validate prostitution-based promiscuity. I wonder why he feels the need for such validation? By choosing to be single and by choosing to not procreate, he then has the freedom of action to do as he will (within the law). With a little effort, he should find plenty of willing partners. With no effort at all, he can purchase sex at will. I wonder if the "no effort at all" has something to do with it?

---------- Post added at 08:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 PM ----------

"All of this subject matter must be brought up in attempt to highlight those men who are sympathetic of the message, and to inoculate the conversation of fathers and other romantics."

Why? Brought up by whom, to what purpose?

SirLance · 11-26-2010, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhnov

I have been the target of these tactics so many times that I am no longer surprised by them. In fact, I expect women to do this, and without fail they all do them.

Makes me think of the women who always seem to wind up with abusive men. It's like they seek each other out. A psychologist I respect told me that in a way they do, their issues cause them to be attracted to that type of personality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhnov

An honest suggestion for men: If it is sex you want, you need not subject yourself to jealous, possessive, vindictive hags. Prostitution is your means of increasing your choices. A business transaction will also better serve your preferences. You will not be subject to a forced negotiation about which particular sex acts are available to you and which ones she is "saving for her future husband". This negotiation somehow never takes place until 7 weeks into the relationship. With a woman who is selling services, this obviously happens much faster.

Personally, I have no ethical issue with prostitution, but I do have an ethical issue with sexual slavery (the forced kind) and that often seems to accompany illegal prostitution. Particularly, I take issue with pimps, but especially those who exploit runaways.

Lindy · 11-26-2010, 09:28 PM

The original poster has nothing to offer a woman. Except money. So of course he would favor prostitution.

Lindy

mixedmedia · 11-26-2010, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbscout

MM, you are officially my hero!

Haha! Thanks. But maybe you wouldn't think so if you knew how I manipulate my man by making him beg for sex treats.

tasineah · 11-26-2010, 10:49 PM

Welcome, Mak, and thank you for the subject matter. As you can see, we dont agree with you. I place myself amongst those who disagree with you on philosophical standards as I do indeed treasure my little subordinate lapdog by the name of CDWonderful. He is a treasure of a man who ties his balls and penis up for me quite royally (and literally) and presents them to me on a platter (again literally). However, I am not of the genetic code of womankind who is driven to have milk in her breasts. I bore one child and am glad I did but I did so because I was drunk and stupid and made poor decisions. I was alcohol free during the entire time of my pregnancy thank god, but not what lead up to it nor what happened after for the first six years of her life. I doubt had I not been an alcoholic, would I ever have been a parent, so this was a blessing out of ruins but I immediately had my tubes tied because I knew I did not have it in me to do more than one child. I will in fact, not even hold a baby. I am trying to get over that since I expect grandchildren some day. I actually fear the day one is born and someone is going to expect me to hold it. I will love when it can toddle. I dont want to think about it when it is supine.

but...what I want to talk to you about is prostitution...

I actually would have loved to have been a prostitute. Not a hooker. A prostitute. A well paid, high end, well known prostitute. I like sex. I equate sex with power over men. Just as you said. I like giving them that. I like giving them the ability to let go and let me handle things for awhile. To really let me handle things...CD tells me he has never had a blow job like mine before. I am an aggressor. I take over and dont let him move. He isnt allowed thrusting or grabbing me or directing or taking control. His cock is MINE. And he learned that from the first time it bulged my pretty little cheeks out. He was to lay back and let me handle it. Him. It. His Cumming. And boy did he...

men want to be taken care of..thats exactly why they want prostitutes..thats why they pay someone. Thats why I would love to be one. CD doesnt have to pay for it. He gets it because I give it to him. By taking all his power sexually. And even when he is thrusting in me, its when I say so...and damn he rides on command well....

lapdogs and johns are not so different Mak. Dont think yourself so unique...you have the same needs....you just havent met the right women...

MrFriendly · 11-27-2010, 04:02 AM

This thread really is a credit to the forum, I have to commend how level headed and mature these responses have been so I might add a little something more.

I've come across real life versions of the OP before, people with the same kind of views towards women. What made me sit up and take notice here was mixedmedia's comment about 'cosumers of philosophy' because it's something I've noticed. I've seen a bit of this, and it reminds me of the kinda folk who believe in ladder theory or the sorta folk who think 'The Game' is an actual instructional book and use all kinds of intellectual tools to justify their behavior or deny their own short comings.

I object to the view held by the OP because, put simply, they're baseless and needless, mostly just totally needless. I just don't see the point in choosing to alienate yourself from the folk who really aren't that different to ones self and can provide a whole lot of happiness. Not only that, why fill that void with more negativity? I'm mean shiiiiiit man, don't you want to smile and be happy? Hating on others is an easy way to distract yourself from your own problems, but at the end of the day, you still have problems to deal with and are no better off.

So you wunna throw in the towel with women and get your sexual fix from whores, that's cool, if you were one of my friends telling me this I'd tell you to dust yourself off and harden the fuck up a little.

But, you're free to do what ever the hell you want bro, I strongly doubt any of us are going to change your mind, that's OK though, it really is your loss.

Plan9 · 11-27-2010, 06:59 AM

I love* threads about the Ladder Theory. They're the forum equiv of invading Poland.

...

I still think the OP is suffering from the bipolar backlash of the concept pushed in my lengthy-quote'd initial response.

...

Also, this related thread topic has been waiting for ages: Groovy OP Idea

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Why is it that so many men who fancy themselves to be 'consumers of philosophy' are instead narcissistic, misogynistic assholes with compulsive sexual needs?

I'm curious, what's the female equiv? I don't want to threadjack this train wreck more than it already has been but, if you would, humor me.

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFriendly

...I'd tell you to dust yourself off and harden the fuck up...

Mr. Friendly?

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makhnov

Not a single post within the 17 replies so far have addressed either one of these sentences.

You can't win 'em all. Keep posting, bro. If you're genuinely interested in finding mature discussion, this is the forum for it.

...

Wait... you know what's kinda weird? I totally posted angry, bitter rant-garbage like this all the frickin' time when I first showed up here at TFP and yet, for some reason I'll never understand, I wasn't instantly booed off stage by the gauntlet of equal rights ivory tower We Are The Worlders. Hmm, time for another TFP Is Changing thread, perhaps? I dig how Kant and psychological dysfunction are paraded out as some type of high brow analysis of what probably just amounts to Another Modern Male being really tired of and frustrated by his failures in intimate relationships. I'm glad that it takes a herd of fruitcakes to identify lone fruits and nuts. It gives me some perspective.

Basically: I don't want to be like that. It seems we've got these free floating labels for what is acceptable and the adhesive on said labels only lasts for a short duration.

So, yeah, I'm glad you guys were gentler with me. I've really learned a lot being here and I've grown to be a better person for it. And maybe there is another me in this guy.

mixedmedia · 11-27-2010, 07:05 AM

I have changed, too. I'm no longer interested in getting into long, drawn out conversations about stuff that's important to me with people who really care about nothing other than getting a rise out of someone so they can sit and giggle to themselves about how glib and garrulous they are. That's how I've changed.

11-25-2010, 08:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
Makhnov Banned	Men's choice and preference Having been given the green light on this subject, I will say again that I promote prostitution as an alternative lifestyle against dating and monogamy. One of the common sentences I employ is "You need not subject yourself to vindictive, possessive hags". For the purposes of communication, that sentence needs to have its meaning fleshed out. Once we get through that, there is a chance that the door of the discussion will be opened to more advanced topics. Monogamous relationships exist to facilitate and promote the Mommy/baby social unit. They do not exist for the purposes of expanding and promoting the sexual choices of men. In many cases, dating jealous, single women will reduce your choices. Prostitution is a means of increasing your choices. The alternative involves subjecting yourself to the following, Women will interrogate your mercilessly, all while keeping everything about themselves as "incomprehensible secrets". They will seize on every little opportunity to aggressively and meanly insult the person they are talking to. They fly into Biting Sarcasm Mode out of the blue; where everything coming out of their mouths is a parody of something they hate or someone they think is ridiculous. After successfully manipulating your behavior, they will not refer to this as manipulation, but instead say you are "growing as a person". They will destroy men's lives in the service of their babies. If she takes interest in a guy, and believes there is a possibility of a hookup, she will begin treating him like trash, in order to see if he leaves. This is a litmus test used by women to read men's motivations. Later into the relationship, a similar tactic is deployed, but this time it is used to test his loyalty. All of this is in the strategy of extracting and mind-reading. Women leverage the pervasive cultural ethos that men are dangerous criminals, and women are innocent bunnies. Thus he must "prove himself safe" in order for communication to continue. She is not genuinely in danger and genuinely interested in staying safe. Her motivation is to extract his entire life story without her having to reveal a single thing about herself. It is pure strategy. I have been the target of these tactics so many times that I am no longer surprised by them. In fact, I expect women to do this, and without fail they all do them. Women are not mesmerized by you. They are rarely interested in sex. What mesmerizes women are little children. It is the house full of babies that they want. This true motivation is always concealed, and concealed for purely strategic reasons. This topic alone can be expanded upon in book-length exposition, but I will refrain until relevant replies appear. An honest suggestion for men: If it is sex you want, you need not subject yourself to jealous, possessive, vindictive hags. Prostitution is your means of increasing your choices. A business transaction will also better serve your preferences. You will not be subject to a forced negotiation about which particular sex acts are available to you and which ones she is "saving for her future husband". This negotiation somehow never takes place until 7 weeks into the relationship. With a woman who is selling services, this obviously happens much faster.

11-25-2010, 08:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
jewels Eponymous Location: Central Central Florida	Wow, just wow. Are you soliciting reactions, do you have a legitimate question or is this an educational program? __________________ We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess. Mark Twain Last edited by jewels; 11-25-2010 at 08:56 PM..

11-25-2010, 10:36 PM	#7 (permalink)
cadre The Worst Influence Location: Arizona	Don't feed the troll guys... Just sayin. What I take from this is you have had bad luck with women or you illicit this attitude from your partners. Maybe an attitude adjustment would help you attract a better partner. __________________ My life is one of those 'you had to be there' jokes.

11-26-2010, 03:55 AM	#9 (permalink)
MrFriendly Psycho Location: Australia	I having nothing articulate to say, apart from women are pretty freakin rad. Sounds like you got a few daemons to fight bro. __________________ You are not a slave

11-26-2010, 09:13 AM	#13 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I want to post a retort, but just don't have the energy. You sound like you have it "all figured out." Here's to long life - may yours be exceptionally long. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

11-25-2010, 09:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	No offense, but you know exactly nothing about women. I won't pretend to be an expert, but I've been able to deduce quite a bit about women from my experiences, and I can tell you a few things: 1) Many, if not most women certainly are interested in sex. They may not be interested in precisely the same way as most men, but it's a lot closer than people suppose. Women like the physical pleasure of sex, they enjoy the intimacy and that special connection that comes from the combination of healthy sexual physical and emotional attachment. Not only that, but they can get worked up into a frothy sexual mess when they want to and when they're properly stimulated, to the point of, as you say, mesmerization. This is not some massive conspiracy to trick men into helping them procreate, but rather a natural biological urge, virtually identical to the urge men have. 2) While many women do have a strong biological urge to procreate, it's a part of a larger set of innate and environmental factors which make up a woman's attitude towards sex. It's not JUST baby-making. It's not even JUST monogamy. 3) Men, such as myself, are naturally not only capable of monogamy, but some of us even prefer it strongly. I've not been reprogrammed by society or something, I want to be a father and be a part of a stable, healthy family unit. I had it before and I consciously recognize that, for me, it's a better living situation than being a cocksman (sexually active bachelor). 4) Finally, your generalization that all women are kiniving, manipulative, hateful, selfish baby machines is incredibly offensive and simply untrue. The most caring, selfless, loving, empathetic people I know are women. Not that the men I know aren't, but I happen to know women who prove your hypothesis wrong. Jewels, in fact, is an example of a caring, intelligent, non-manipulative, strong, independent woman. She proves you wrong. Oh, and I've never had to pay for sex before. Why would I want to pay money for something I get for free?

11-26-2010, 08:11 AM	#10 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	Hrm. Any chance that your past relationship problems had anything to do with your own behavior?

11-26-2010, 08:55 AM	#11 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	I visited the OP's profile, out of curiosity. The OP is a case study in misogyny, to me. I was just fascinated by it. I may respond later, but I may not; it just seems futile. Anyway, when I visited his profile, I was struck by the irony of the profile status message: "Makhnov hasn't made any friends yet."

11-26-2010, 11:16 AM	#14 (permalink)
jewels Eponymous Location: Central Central Florida	I guess the troll's done his work. His lead-in post suggested a conversation about prostitution, which has been done here but is, at least, interesting. But the fact that he's chosen a forum such as TFP which is obviously as open and sexual as they come (porn-exclusive sites don't count) to create a female-bashing post with no question or intent stated is intensely suspect. If you're lurking, what *were* you hoping to accomplish? Are we ready for the "more advanced topics" yet? By any chance, are you related to the sociopath? __________________ We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess. Mark Twain

11-26-2010, 11:35 AM	#17 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Well, I'm looking for conversation. And seeing that you and I are sitting here twiddling our thumbs, shall we dance? Very rarely do I feel as if a "troll" can dump its toxic waste here on TFP without it turning into fertilizer for a beautiful flower. Or, ya know, at least a really good one-liner that leaves us all going THBHBHTHBHBBHTT! for the next decade. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 11-26-2010 at 11:37 AM..

11-26-2010, 11:42 AM	#18 (permalink)
jewels Eponymous Location: Central Central Florida	Heading out to work now, but a quick cha cha would be nice. Cha Cha - Chelo \| Music Video \| VEVO __________________ We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess. Mark Twain

11-26-2010, 12:09 PM	#19 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	I read your post, niner. I did not read the OP past, 'possessive hags' What parts of your post do you agree or disagree with? I'm way way past child bearing age & never experienced the urge for babies. The settling down part, yeah. & Levite's post is full of good wise advice. Have a nice day at work, Jewels. Okay, where were/are we? Last edited by ring; 11-26-2010 at 12:12 PM..

11-26-2010, 01:02 PM	#22 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Of course, the fact that 'sex tourism' willfully rests on the exploitation of young men and women who are sold, given, taken by others has no bearing on the topic. Sorry, but your need to ejaculate inside another human is a pathetic excuse for rationalizing that industry. Legalizing/legitimizing/standardizing prostitution would radically change your practice of buying sex. You realize that don't you? It's bullshit. You don't want anything to change. You just want to be told that your choices are ok. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

11-26-2010, 01:05 PM	#23 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	"I am here to find other men who travel for the purposes of buying services." That, is not going to happen here. Take your hate speak against women..the fuck outta here.

11-26-2010, 01:56 PM	#24 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I'm pretty sure monogamy exists solely as a means for gay men to obscure the nature of their sexuality. Pretty sure anyone who doesn't agree with me is either a closeted homo or delusional. Last edited by filtherton; 11-26-2010 at 06:43 PM..

11-26-2010, 02:25 PM	#25 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Why is it that so many men who fancy themselves to be 'consumers of philosophy' are instead narcissistic, misogynistic assholes with compulsive sexual needs? I know there are a lot of philosophy nerds here (forgive my euphemism), so this is not a universal observation, just one that I have gathered through strictly empirical observation. There seems to be a tendency amongst some of those that I've had the misfortune to come in contact with to cover their self-indulgence with a glean of philosophical authority. Anyone else ever observe this? __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce Last edited by mixedmedia; 11-26-2010 at 02:29 PM..

11-26-2010, 02:44 PM	#26 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	Yes, I have noticed that also. Cloaking their true agenda inside some jargon that 'sounds' just philosophical enough to gain an audience ..etc. Ayn Randitis. Last edited by ring; 11-26-2010 at 02:48 PM..

11-26-2010, 05:30 PM	#32 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	From my point of view, Makhnov, you're mixing two very distinct subjects. I think most of us here are focusing on your misogyny, because it's so blatant and over the top, but a couple of people have responded to your point about prostitution. Personally, I don't have an ethical problem with prostitution, so long as there's no victimization. Unfortunately, I think the evidence is pretty solid that a large percentage of prostitution does involve victimization, especially the sex tourism you refer to. If we take prostitution as simply an exchange of intimate services for money, I'm ok with that, and honestly thing it would be fun. Doesn't seem that different to me than paying for a massage, for instance. That is, assuming I weren't in a monogamous relationship, and that prostitution is illegal. Unfortunately, prostitution much (perhaps most) of the time it involves the victimization of another human being. Personally, this puts it off-limits to me for ethical reasons, unless I were reasonably certain the exchange were made without coercion. Unfortunately, a fair amount of porn probably falls into the same ethical problems, and Rosy Palmer and her five sisters can attest that I make use of that quite a bit...so I'm not exactly the symbol of ethical purity on that count. Now regarding the rest of your post...I'm seeing what I think is a bit of a logic problem in your arguments. If I understand you correctly, you claim that the very concept of a monogamous relationships are structured purely for the woman's benefit, and that women are manipulative in the extreme to control the men in these relationships. And yet you say you have the utmost respect for those men who chose to be in them. This doesn't make sense to me - you have respect for men that allow themselves to be crassly manipulated by the women in their lives, when "They willfully turn themselves into dogs begging for sex treats..."? How does that work, exactly. Now, I think there's a bit of truth to some of the things you say. There are certainly lots of examples of women manipulating men with sex, just as there are lots of examples of men abusing women. What you seem to be arguing seems to me to be the exact mirror of a stereotypical rabid feminist arguing that 'all men are rapists'. In other words, I think you're generalizing your personal, negative, experience to every woman and every relationship between men and women.

11-26-2010, 05:39 PM	#33 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	OP seems a little ticked that no one has engaged him in his commentary and has just dismissed him as a troll/misogynist. I have a thought or two on some of the topics that he's raised. I believe that there are two parts to fundamental human behaviors. There's the part that is based on the evolution of the species. It's a success trait for the species for a woman to be interested in establishing a stable relationship. That's also a success trait for a man since it's his offspring that benefit. There's probably a competing instinct to spread genes. That's most likely true for men and (I read somewhere) also a benefit to a woman in the context of genetic diversity. A balance seems to have developed between these two instincts, favoring a stable relationship. Then there's the part of behavior that is learned as opposed to instinctive. It's important to remember that the species hasn't evolved all that much in several thousand years. Culture and civilization are relatively new to us, but we are essentially the same as we were 8 or 10 thousand years ago, before any vestige of civilization developed. The difference between then and now is the body of collective knowledge, expressed in willful behavior as opposed to instinctive. The OP would like, I think, to justify his choices and desires by ignoring the second part and at least part of the first part. In short, whatever it takes in order to validate prostitution-based promiscuity. I wonder why he feels the need for such validation? By choosing to be single and by choosing to not procreate, he then has the freedom of action to do as he will (within the law). With a little effort, he should find plenty of willing partners. With no effort at all, he can purchase sex at will. I wonder if the "no effort at all" has something to do with it? ---------- Post added at 08:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 PM ---------- "All of this subject matter must be brought up in attempt to highlight those men who are sympathetic of the message, and to inoculate the conversation of fathers and other romantics." Why? Brought up by whom, to what purpose?

11-26-2010, 09:28 PM	#35 (permalink)
Lindy Junkie	The original poster has nothing to offer a woman. Except money. So of course he would favor prostitution. Lindy

11-26-2010, 10:49 PM	#37 (permalink)
tasineah Crazy Location: NE region of the united states	Welcome, Mak, and thank you for the subject matter. As you can see, we dont agree with you. I place myself amongst those who disagree with you on philosophical standards as I do indeed treasure my little subordinate lapdog by the name of CDWonderful. He is a treasure of a man who ties his balls and penis up for me quite royally (and literally) and presents them to me on a platter (again literally). However, I am not of the genetic code of womankind who is driven to have milk in her breasts. I bore one child and am glad I did but I did so because I was drunk and stupid and made poor decisions. I was alcohol free during the entire time of my pregnancy thank god, but not what lead up to it nor what happened after for the first six years of her life. I doubt had I not been an alcoholic, would I ever have been a parent, so this was a blessing out of ruins but I immediately had my tubes tied because I knew I did not have it in me to do more than one child. I will in fact, not even hold a baby. I am trying to get over that since I expect grandchildren some day. I actually fear the day one is born and someone is going to expect me to hold it. I will love when it can toddle. I dont want to think about it when it is supine. but...what I want to talk to you about is prostitution... I actually would have loved to have been a prostitute. Not a hooker. A prostitute. A well paid, high end, well known prostitute. I like sex. I equate sex with power over men. Just as you said. I like giving them that. I like giving them the ability to let go and let me handle things for awhile. To really let me handle things...CD tells me he has never had a blow job like mine before. I am an aggressor. I take over and dont let him move. He isnt allowed thrusting or grabbing me or directing or taking control. His cock is MINE. And he learned that from the first time it bulged my pretty little cheeks out. He was to lay back and let me handle it. Him. It. His Cumming. And boy did he... men want to be taken care of..thats exactly why they want prostitutes..thats why they pay someone. Thats why I would love to be one. CD doesnt have to pay for it. He gets it because I give it to him. By taking all his power sexually. And even when he is thrusting in me, its when I say so...and damn he rides on command well.... lapdogs and johns are not so different Mak. Dont think yourself so unique...you have the same needs....you just havent met the right women...

11-27-2010, 04:02 AM	#38 (permalink)
MrFriendly Psycho Location: Australia	This thread really is a credit to the forum, I have to commend how level headed and mature these responses have been so I might add a little something more. I've come across real life versions of the OP before, people with the same kind of views towards women. What made me sit up and take notice here was mixedmedia's comment about 'cosumers of philosophy' because it's something I've noticed. I've seen a bit of this, and it reminds me of the kinda folk who believe in ladder theory or the sorta folk who think 'The Game' is an actual instructional book and use all kinds of intellectual tools to justify their behavior or deny their own short comings. I object to the view held by the OP because, put simply, they're baseless and needless, mostly just totally needless. I just don't see the point in choosing to alienate yourself from the folk who really aren't that different to ones self and can provide a whole lot of happiness. Not only that, why fill that void with more negativity? I'm mean shiiiiiit man, don't you want to smile and be happy? Hating on others is an easy way to distract yourself from your own problems, but at the end of the day, you still have problems to deal with and are no better off. So you wunna throw in the towel with women and get your sexual fix from whores, that's cool, if you were one of my friends telling me this I'd tell you to dust yourself off and harden the fuck up a little. But, you're free to do what ever the hell you want bro, I strongly doubt any of us are going to change your mind, that's OK though, it really is your loss. __________________ You are not a slave

11-27-2010, 07:05 AM	#40 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I have changed, too. I'm no longer interested in getting into long, drawn out conversations about stuff that's important to me with people who really care about nothing other than getting a rise out of someone so they can sit and giggle to themselves about how glib and garrulous they are. That's how I've changed. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce