100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: Dinaric Leather on March 31, 2013, 07:09:25 AM

Title: Buying whores
Post by: Dinaric Leather on March 31, 2013, 07:09:25 AM
So I was driving through northern Nevada when my friend decided to stop at a brothel and buy some pussy. I'm in a relationship, so I didn't partake. I went to the bar to have some drinks and talk to the hookers to see what life was like there, it seemed like they carved themselves out a reasonably good life, as good as a hookers life can be. Probably wouldn't have used their services even if I was single. If any of them were truly attractive I might have been tempted but that definitely wasn't the case ha ha. They were fuckable in the sense they had big tits and nice asses but not worth a couple hundred dollars.

I'm not sure what to think about prostitution. Obviously the prostitutes themselves are morons, but what about the men who buy prostitutes? The consensus is of course that it's a shameful act, but then again I can't really say how it is anything anything other than expensive, more pleasurable masturbation.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on March 31, 2013, 04:33:32 PM
I've never bought a common-and-garden prostitute, but I have some experience of the dominatrix variety.
Most of those are money-grabbing pretenders, but there are a few who actually understand what it is that certain men seek, and are able to deliver it.
These few are not at all moronic. They are what they are intended to be: women that men may worship.
If more women were actually like this, feminism might make some sort of sense.
As it is, it is a retarded plan dreamed up by retards, taken up by retards and has ruined a retarded society.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on March 31, 2013, 06:22:26 PM
Don't they say prostitution is one of the world's oldest professions? I view it the same way as abortion: I would not practice it myself, nor would I encourage friends or family to partake, but I realize that this practice is ingrained in the human psyche to an extent, and as such, communities should be able to decide whether or not to permit it. So, big cities could have legitimate brothels and escort services that allow for greater safety for everyone involved -- for instance, mandatory STD testing and condom use, as well as safeguards against physically abusive customers -- and also provide taxable revenue.

Still, the thought of little girls growing up to be whores irks me, and makes me want to instate even harsher penalties for it.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: anal_rapist on April 01, 2013, 10:16:22 AM
Everyone wants their daughter to be a prostitute, have some dude cum on her face, maybe penetrate her anus, or call some friends so everyone gets a turn.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: aquarius on April 01, 2013, 05:40:11 PM
Everyone wants their daughter to be a prostitute, have some dude cum on her face, maybe penetrate her anus, or call some friends so everyone gets a turn.

People are dumbshits. They don't want a whore for a daughter but also don't see a problem with her attending the 'get better orgasms class'. It just doesn't add up.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: aquarius on April 01, 2013, 06:09:00 PM
what about the men who buy prostitutes? The consensus is of course that it's a shameful act, but then again I can't really say how it is anything anything other than expensive, more pleasurable masturbation.

To put it this way.

The poor animals know no better, and because of this god forgives them.
But he does not forgive infidels.

To put it in such a way.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Cheeseburger Zombie on April 01, 2013, 08:45:19 PM
People are dumbshits.

Truth!!!

Either that or, they're just thoughtless.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Dinaric Leather on April 05, 2013, 08:48:14 AM
Everyone wants their daughter to be a prostitute, have some dude cum on her face, maybe penetrate her anus, or call some friends so everyone gets a turn.

People are dumbshits. They don't want a whore for a daughter but also don't see a problem with her attending the 'get better orgasms class'. It just doesn't add up.
To be fair, I don't really see the issue of trying to achieve better orgasms; with your monogamous partner. Of course, thats not the philosophy they generally teach at those classes I assume. If my (theoretical) daughter came to me and told me she wants to read "The Metaphysics of Sex" by Julius Evola, I would be fine with it. Well actually I would say "OK I don't want to hear anymore about your sex life however I'm glad you are interested in Julius Evola" but you know what I mean.

To be honest this was kind of a devils advocate thread, purchasing pussy is plainly pernicious because it reduces the sacred act of sex to a monetary price.

women that men may worship.
I find that idea pretty repulsive. I don't think any individual woman is in any way needing of worship, I prefer the practice worshiping human feminity in general via Venus or Freyja. I don't think any individual man should be worshipped for that matter. I also believe that men in any sort of subservient role to a woman are commiting a crime against nature. Not counting pragmatic concerns of surviving in our ass backwards society like having a female boss at your inane job or whatever.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 05, 2013, 09:02:56 AM
I was once that opinionated, too. And that immature.
People are, but if they develop, they're not.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: indjaseemun on April 05, 2013, 09:26:48 AM
Whorehouses are traditional! Prostitution can't stop. God bless the whores.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: aquarius on April 05, 2013, 07:24:28 PM
Imagine putting your ding dong inside a woman whom thousands of Bikers, Execs, Schizos, Students and Junkies have enjoyed and feeling that your desires more or less match theirs at this point of your life. To add further detail to this grotesque scene, imagine her as child that dreamed of one day being something.

A broken dream made reality.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Dinaric Leather on April 06, 2013, 12:29:29 AM
I was once that opinionated, too. And that immature.
People are, but if they develop, they're not.
I respect you, otherwise I would not have bothered to respond, but I feel you have some wisdom to offer me. Merely telling me that I am wrong and will  eventually develop a greater understanding is not enough for me, please tell me why I am mistaken in that individual females should not be worshipped.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: fallot on April 06, 2013, 04:56:57 AM
I can't countenance worshiping some female godhead, or anything feminine, much less actual individual women. It's a denial of my genetic legacy as a male human being. Just perversion.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 10:40:50 AM
I was once that opinionated, too. And that immature.
People are, but if they develop, they're not.
I respect you, otherwise I would not have bothered to respond, but I feel you have some wisdom to offer me. Merely telling me that I am wrong and will  eventually develop a greater understanding is not enough for me, please tell me why I am mistaken in that individual females should not be worshipped.


I said what I meant. And that will have to suffice.
Explaining anything to anyone on forums never did work. Because people on forums start out being right, and remain right, no matter what happens next.
Here's a clue: I was not always who I am now. And who I once was, was the result of experiences that made me that way. This is not unusual. As for worshipping women, or a particular woman: this is probably better than abusing them, or raping them. And when one has no Deity to worship, as was the case for me, then, there may be a need to worship something.

Maybe there are people here who are not excited by women, and excitement can take many forms.
I can only speak for myself when I say my life, until quite recently, more or less centered around women and their sexual appeal.
I find it something of a relief that this obsession is now in steep decline.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Goatreich on April 06, 2013, 11:41:23 AM
I think it should be legalized with many restrictions. It'd clean up the streets.

I've never delved into this area, but if sex has no meaning to some then let them do what they want - it's more proactive than behind a dumpster.

 :o
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 12:01:04 PM
Some here think that prostitutes are poor victims that have no choice in their profession.
While this may be true of some, it is certainly not true of all.
I have known two women, both intelligent, both sorted-out, that chose to do this thing voluntarily, although there was no financial compulsion to do so. They felt it empowered them, so they said.

Some here also think that anyone who avails themselves of such services must be (insert judgmental term here).
This, too, is not so. People, being different from each other, have many and varied reasons and motivations, for whatever they decide to do.

I once paid a somewhat overweight hooker $200 to sit and talk for an hour. No sex. Just talk. I guess I was sufficiently lonely at the time, that I would do this crazy thing. It made her feel special, and it amused me that I would pay so much for something that in a functional society would be so easy to come by.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Goatreich on April 06, 2013, 12:43:04 PM
So, you bought a whore without the purpose of utilizing her "abilities" and "skills" of her profession.

That's quite interesting that you went through such lengths for social interaction. Why not go to a bar instead? Bartenders are practically therapists.

Did she have anything enlightening to say? Or did you Dr. Phil her?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 12:52:49 PM
She was singularly boring, as I recall, and it was $200 I really shouldn't have spent.
But it was not often I had that much to spend, anyway, and it was an interesting experience.
And, whoever Dr. Phil is, no, I didn't. I wasn't especially wise, back then.
Or especially analytical, either, which, to my satisfaction, I still am not.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Umbrage on April 06, 2013, 01:02:16 PM
Wow, this thread is turning into crack whore confessions (http://www.crackwhoreconfessions.com).

Legalize prostitution but keep it out of the cities (build entertainment centers on desolate spots next to high ways, think Las Vegas but much smaller) Regulate it, tax it and meanwhile ban the shit out of street prostitution to keep cities clean. Execute pimps who also dabble in drugs and execute human traffickers.


Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 01:09:55 PM
Somewhere, even as we write, there is probably a forum for pimps that are saying the exact same things about deathmetalubermen.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Umbrage on April 06, 2013, 01:23:33 PM
Somewhere, even as we write, there is probably a forum for pimps that are saying the exact same things about deathmetalubermen.

Go here for that:
http://www.officialpimpsandhoes.blogspot.nl/
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Goatreich on April 06, 2013, 01:38:08 PM
Yeah. I'd imagine she wouldn't be worthwhile for much conversation other than "Oh man, my crotch itches. I'll let you lick it for $10."

I've had friends in the "dancing" profession, but they too were "singular".   ;D
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 01:53:13 PM
This unlikely thread is interesting because:
There are those that contribute something of possible interest.
While there are others that contribute nothing, but judge and condemn the contributions of others.

There is this idea, too, that any relating of personal experience, which is a description of reality, is somehow flawed and egotistical. Which seems to suggest that those having no actual experience of reality, have no idea what it is, and resent its intrusion into the judgmental realm of the hypothetical.

This forum, cutting-edge as it is, is actively interested in modifying this behaviour, or failing that, exorcising it altogether. Be a brotherhood of ubermen, if that is what you desire. But know how this might be achieved, and have the self-discipline to implement it.




Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Goatreich on April 06, 2013, 02:13:21 PM
The reality of whores was previously mentioned by someone else.

They've existed throughout humanity and will always exist. Jesus even partook in them.

I was inquiring about the circumstances of such encounters.

Insight from different walks of life is good to have a broad picture, but I can imagine the daily habits of a an average whore: drugs, sex, money.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 03:43:50 PM
...but I can imagine the daily habits of a an average whore: drugs, sex, money.

Not much different from most other people, then.
Everyone here will cross paths with a pro at some point, if they live long enough.
Not necessarily as a customer, but quite possibly.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Goatreich on April 06, 2013, 04:29:43 PM
The pros find rich people.   :D

There are different whores for different walks of life. Some people whore themselves out in different ways.

What type of whoring displeases you the most?

Mine are those who whore out religious propaganda to convince others to give them their money.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 04:51:45 PM
I am displeased most by career politicians. Especially the left wing ones.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on April 06, 2013, 04:56:11 PM
...but I can imagine the daily habits of a an average whore: drugs, sex, money.
 
Everyone here will cross paths with a pro at some point, if they live long enough.
"Pro" as in what? Pro at sex?

"Sexual experience" is a myth invented by lonely cougars to in a feeble attempt to dissuade themselves that they've passed their expiration date.

It's pretty hard for a girl to be "bad" at sex as long as she doesn't just lie there motionless.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 05:01:33 PM
Pro as in doing it for money.
Contrary to popular misunderstanding, pro does in no way mean good at it.
Sexual experience is a very valid state, although this would be unknown to those who lack it, or have never experienced it.
Being open to things not-yet-experienced is one facet of that.
Such an attitude allows the gaining of experience.
And many women, do, in fact, just lie there. Which, one might argue, is a feminine trait.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on April 06, 2013, 05:23:45 PM
I should have been more clear: there is no doubt that there are varying levels of sexual prowess in regards to males. But when it comes to females, all they need to do is be physically attractive, and show some sign of enjoying themselves. Most guys, except for fetishists, don't care if a girl can do reverse-triple-cowgirl-with-a-cherry-on-top while milking your prostate. All guys want is a nice ass, a nice rack, a pretty face, and a feminine personality.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 05:40:22 PM
You feel you can speak for all guys?
I, for instance, have become aware, over the years, that my taste in women is not generally shared by others.
This is a good thing, don't you think?
Or two billion guys would all be going after nine women.
Maybe I exaggerate a little, but you probably get my drift.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on April 06, 2013, 06:19:40 PM
I admit to making some pretty broad generalizations, so enlighten me:

What kind of specific sexual knowledge can a woman possess to make herself more desirable in your eyes?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 06:32:12 PM
All kinds. None of which I am prepared to discuss here.
But, for example, while other men focus on various body-parts, I tend to be most focused on the face.
I have always been a sucker for certain faces, and certain expressions upon those faces.
Cool, aloof, calm...
Focusing too closely on anything can get you into no end of trouble.
You start imagining the woman to be all sorts of things she isn't.
While completely turning a blind eye to many of the things she is.

Everything seemed to work fairly well, for men and women, before feminists upset the apple cart.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on April 06, 2013, 06:49:23 PM
Feminism can refer to a variety of different philosophies. There's the kind of feminism that got women the vote,  and there's the kind that made it ok to behave like you're 20 until you're 40. There's the kind that seeks to make women and men equals, and the kind that seeks to raise the lesser sex above the other. Which one are you referring to?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 06:57:52 PM
All of them.
The young make all kinds of automatic assumptions about the goodness or badness of things, as a result of their politically motivated conditioning, that to older people remain absurd.
Are men and women equal? How? Why?
Should emotionally-steered women vote? Should child-bearers compete with child-seeders? Why?
You can see how well all this is working: very, very, very poorly.
Unless, of curse, you have nothing to compare it to.
Then it probably looks fine.

Anyway, back to hookers:
They have always existed, and always will. No two are the same, as are no two of their clients.
It is a job, and a historically necessary one.

Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on April 06, 2013, 07:16:12 PM
Consider Muslim nations where the exact opposite of feminism exists.

In Saudi Arabia, women can't drive. How can a society be productive when half the population is effectively immobilized? Should fathers work a job and also be responsible for groceries and children's activities?

In rural Pakistan, small girls are betrothed while they are under the age of 10. How is a marriage supposed to be functional when there is no test for compatibility first? Is true love just a myth, like our cynical society would lead us to believe?

All over the middle east, women are discouraged from pursuing higher education. I wonder where they get their nurses, therapists, and elementary school teachers from? Oh well, at least the women can't fuck it up.

Does this kind of cultural absolutism appeal to you?

Women are capable of comprehending reality too; in fact there are certain subtleties to life that women perceive more readily than men, such as beauty. I suggest you read the excellent novel Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley.

By the way, what does your wife think of the fact that you think her too emotional to vote?

EDIT: this post was rewritten.

Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 07:34:13 PM
And I suggest to you that what Muslims do in Muslimland is nobody's business but Muslims'.
I remember how things worked back then, in the West, and compare it to the way they don't now.
Women and men are not the same: take a look and see. Although, I admit, it's becoming more and more difficult to find a decent example of either a woman or a man.
To behave as if they are the same, however, is mad.

In response to your edit: My wife is with me in a way you would not understand. That you would even ask this question proves that. She is a woman. Proudly and completely. And she values a man who is a complete man. She doesn't vote any more, and agrees she is often motivated by emotion, which is a very poor director of national policy. She scorns feminism for the destructive madness it is, and did so even before we met.



Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on April 06, 2013, 08:57:23 PM
I don't give a fuck what Muslims do in Muslim land either. But that doesn't mean we can't learn from them.

We can observe that Western society, which affords females more privileges, is more sustainable than the absolute patriarchy we observe in middle-eastern societies.

I have nothing against submissive women, such as your wife, but your one-size-fits-all disposition towards them is disrespectful towards those who want to contribute to society in other ways.

Tomorrow, I'll see if my mother, who has a masters degree and works, will make a guest post. In my opinion, she is pretty close to society's ideal woman.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 09:19:06 PM
Disrespect is something you are far more comfortable with than I.
You don't even recognize how often or how comprehensively you do it.
Or, I imagine, just how much a liberal feminist you are.
Is your mother responsible for that?
Mind you don't let her catch you swearing, now.

I never expect agreement from you or anybody else, but a certain baseline respect is required.
You have demonstrated, yet again, that no matter what I write, or how I write it, you understand nothing.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: istaros on April 06, 2013, 10:01:04 PM
In response to your edit: My wife is with me in a way you would not understand. That you would even ask this question proves that. She is a woman. Proudly and completely. And she values a man who is a complete man. She doesn't vote any more, and agrees she is often motivated by emotion, which is a very poor director of national policy. She scorns feminism for the destructive madness it is, and did so even before we met.
Congratulations on finding, and attaching to yourself, a woman who fully embraces her sex :)
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 10:06:12 PM
Congratulations on finding, and attaching to yourself, a woman who fully embraces her sex :)

Thank you. It works well. Although getting it to work well was a mammoth task.
The ends justifies the means.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: istaros on April 06, 2013, 10:26:18 PM
In Saudi Arabia, women can't drive. How can a society be productive when half the population is effectively immobilized? Should fathers work a job and also be responsible for groceries and children's activities?

In rural Pakistan, small girls are betrothed while they are under the age of 10. How is a marriage supposed to be functional when there is no test for compatibility first? Is true love just a myth, like our cynical society would lead us to believe?

All over the middle east, women are discouraged from pursuing higher education. I wonder where they get their nurses, therapists, and elementary school teachers from? Oh well, at least the women can't fuck it up.

We can observe that Western society, which affords females more privileges, is more sustainable than the absolute patriarchy we observe in middle-eastern societies.
Are you trolling? Considering Saudi Arabia has a massive influence on the world at large, I would say their society is pretty productive.

If you think the primary point of getting married is to show how in love you are, you may as well write up a divorce letter now. Compatibility is not an innate value, that either exists or doesn't; it's a learned behavior. Considering that society's divorce rate is lower than ours, I'd say their marriages are more functional. Whether or not you agree with their concept of marriage is beside the point - you are trying to say it doesn't function, whereas it clearly does.

As to your third point, are you saying that the Middle East is absent of nurses, therapists, and schoolteachers? It's either that, which of course is nonsense, or you're instead saying that those societies suffer because men are doddering fools incapable of inserting an IV drip. That sounds more like "raising the lesser sex" than "making men and women equal" - which is an asinine proposal anyway, not only because it requires eliminating the very concepts of masculinity and femininity in the first place(and thereby showing its true nature, which is misogynistic), but also because it is literally impossible.

Finally, if Western society is indeed more sustainable than the absolute patriarchy that obviously intimidates you, there is no reason to believe that this is due to women being able to vote. In fact, the West experienced great successes prior to women being given positions of power. Women were given voting rights in the USA around, what, the mid-19th century? So that's about 150 years? Whereas absolute patriarchy has existed in the Middle East -hell, most of the world- in an uninterrupted state for... millenia. A proven system sounds more sustainable than an unproven one to me.

Reality is against you. Guess who wins.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 10:42:50 PM
You raise a telling point, Istaros...
Prior to the notion of equality as being in any way important, the West was on the up-and-up.
Whereas ever since then, it has gone into severe decline.
Diverting capital and other resources away from civilization-building, and sinking it into a sharing-out equally, can only result in the results now manifest.
Bye-bye civilization.
I have a feeling we will only all be finally equal in a sordid and wholly unnecessary oblivion.

Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Dinaric Leather on April 06, 2013, 10:58:14 PM
Legalize prostitution but keep it out of the cities (build entertainment centers on desolate spots next to high ways, think Las Vegas but much smaller)
As an aside, prostitution is illegal in Clark County (Las Vegas), It's also illegal in Nevadas next biggest city, Reno, and a couple other counties.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 06, 2013, 11:02:47 PM
Haha :)
Oh yes, we all forgot this thread was about prostitution.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on April 07, 2013, 01:34:44 AM
Are you trolling? Considering Saudi Arabia has a massive influence on the world at large, I would say their society is pretty productive.
Because they're sitting above a sea of oil. If that weren't the case, well, they'd probably be just another podunk third-world goat-herding shit hole. "Feminist" Israel, on the other hand, is a cultural and technological powerhouse despite their acceptance of 'atraditional' gender roles. Why? because they have a strong sense of national identity and a culture that promotes excellence, not because they force women into motherhood.


Quote
If you think the primary point of getting married is to show how in love you are, you may as well write up a divorce letter now. Compatibility is not an innate value, that either exists or doesn't; it's a learned behavior. Considering that society's divorce rate is lower than ours, I'd say their marriages are more functional. Whether or not you agree with their concept of marriage is beside the point - you are trying to say it doesn't function, whereas it clearly does.
Divorce rates are just a number and do not bespeak of the most important aspect: quality of offspring. I don't have any studies to back this up, but it seems to me that children raised in a household where the parents voluntarily chose to live with one another would be more well-rounded than those raised in a household where the only thing keeping the marriage together is the threat of shame and ostracism. Besides, would you marry just any girl, or would you like to have a choice? How this isn't common sense is beyond me.

Quote
As to your third point, are you saying that the Middle East is absent of nurses, therapists, and schoolteachers? It's either that, which of course is nonsense, or you're instead saying that those societies suffer because men are doddering fools incapable of inserting an IV drip.
Strawman on both counts.

Men are perfectly capable of sticking an IV in a patient; that is but one side of nursing. However, women, being naturally more empathetic and extroverted, excel at the social aspect of patient care, which is what separates a good nurse from a great one, assuming that nurse is competent in the scientific aspect.

(I will admit that my post was hastily written. Women do in fact work as nurses and school teachers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the middle-east.)

Quote
That sounds more like "raising the lesser sex" than "making men and women equal" - which is an asinine proposal anyway, not only because it requires eliminating the very concepts of masculinity and femininity in the first place(and thereby showing its true nature, which is misogynistic), but also because it is literally impossible.
I'm not a "left wing creationist". I realize that males and females differ biologically, psychologically, and spiritually. However, these differences do not need to be institutionalized as they are in the middle-east; instead, gender specific roles should exist as 'cultural recommendations', not laws. Furthermore, just as a man is free to choose whether or not to produce offspring (in which case he will hopefully devote his life to his career, religion, cause, etc; rather than hedonistic pursuits), so too should a woman be able to do the same. This is what is meant by equality. The pursuit of intellectual, political, or economic endeavors by women should, however, be seen a "special calling", rather than the de facto course of action as is promulgated by liberal sources.


Quote
Finally, if Western society is indeed more sustainable than the absolute patriarchy that obviously intimidates you, there is no reason to believe that this is due to women being able to vote. In fact, the West experienced great successes prior to women being given positions of power. Women were given voting rights in the USA around, what, the mid-19th century? So that's about 150 years? Whereas absolute patriarchy has existed in the Middle East -hell, most of the world- in an uninterrupted state for... millenia. A proven system sounds more sustainable than an unproven one to me.
The middle east never conquered the world (they had their chance in the middle ages but they fell to the Mongols), unlike Western Europe, which has typically had a more 'liberal' stance on woman's place in society, and even has a longstanding tradition of queens, empresses, and duchesses.

I agree that this modern feminism has to be reeled back in, but there is such a thing as a healthy feminism.

Quote
Reality is against you. Guess who wins.
A quaint turn of phrase. But let me offer you this as an answer: Who Dares, Wins :)

Also, Brett Stevens would be out of a job without feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace) :P
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: fallot on April 07, 2013, 05:03:55 AM
What the hell does Ada Lovelace have to do with feminism? You know what this sounds like? It's like when liberals say just because Dr. Blackperson got a PhD in physics, so can Da'Shwawn from the hood. A capable woman is not an argument for feminism, but an argument against.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Humanicide on April 07, 2013, 07:22:21 AM
A capable woman is not an argument for feminism, but an argument against.

Actually, a capable woman is the whole reason for feminism's existence. Early feminist movements were more about not treating women as second class citizens, not the third wave feminist man-hating drek you see today.

The Saudi's oil is going to dry up within the next century - I wonder what will happen to them then?

On the thread's topic: I've never bought a hooker, nor do I ever really plan to. Prostitution is distasteful, but I'd rather it exist and be regulated for safety than have it exist unchecked. Brothels and Huoooooorhouses are a good solution here.

As an aside, prostitution is illegal in Clark County (Las Vegas), It's also illegal in Nevadas next biggest city, Reno, and a couple other counties.

Really? I had always thought Vegas had it legalized or at least decriminalized. Why is it tolerated so much, then?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: istaros on April 07, 2013, 08:18:43 AM
Because they're sitting above a sea of oil. If that weren't the case, well, they'd probably be just another podunk third-world goat-herding shit hole. "Feminist" Israel, on the other hand, is a cultural and technological powerhouse despite their acceptance of 'atraditional' gender roles. Why? because they have a strong sense of national identity and a culture that promotes excellence, not because they force women into motherhood.
Two can play that game. If Saudi Arabia is influential ONLY because of the circumstances of their existence, then Israel is likewise only a powerhouse because of the circumstances of ITS existence - namely, massive financial and military support from the one and only nation that can truly be called a world power. Israel's success is definitely not due to feminism. What a ridiculous notion. If this were true, Canada, France, and Sweden would be at the top of the list instead of the relative nobodies that they are today. You even seem to understand this with the last sentence, so any reason you have for mentioning feminism in this context in the first place remains a mystery. It is irrelevant. Saudi Arabia's society works, and no, you cannot dismiss this fact away by pointing out their circumstances. Plenty of sub-Saharan nations are sitting on top of vast fields of natural resources as well; regardless, they remain a collective joke. Their societies don't work, Saudi Arabia's does.


Quote
Divorce rates are just a number and do not bespeak of the most important aspect: quality of offspring. I don't have any studies to back this up, but it seems to me that children raised in a household where the parents voluntarily chose to live with one another would be more well-rounded than those raised in a household where the only thing keeping the marriage together is the threat of shame and ostracism. Besides, would you marry just any girl, or would you like to have a choice? How this isn't common sense is beyond me.
It isn't common sense to you because you've been fed the idea that choice is your right as a human being. Rights do not exist, and if they do, every man is born with only one: the right to die. Other than this, every concept of what we deserve is a societal invention. Happiness is not found in getting what you want; it's found in accepting what you have. I suggest you actually find and socialize with some of the people in your town who still practice arranged marriage - there's bound to be some old-school Indians or Pakistanis enrolled in your local colleges' language courses. Go in without the blinders shrill harpies have put over your eyes and you'll find far more contentment than in couples who have to tread carefully lest the other consider divorce for reasons as trivial as "he's not the same person he was when we got married."

Also, nice ninja move - at one point you decry arranged marriage because it's not "true love,"(in itself a fallacious claim, as ACTUAL love has more to do with dedication and sacrifice than it does with emotional pleasure) and now you're saying you dislike it because of the children. Of course, children in societies that practice arranged marriage are unquestionably better-behaved than those in liberal ones. Unquestionably. You will NEVER see a child throwing a fit in the dirt of an African mud hut. Nor will you see such children growing up to be drug-addled losers. Here's a dose of common sense: some of this is because they are given responsibilities and expectations from a young age. Such as the knowledge that they are already betrothed, and had better find some manner in which to make the investment that other people put into them well worth it. Just as in our societies, children respond to structure and discipline a million times better than they do to the freedom to do as they please.

Quote
Strawman on both counts.

Men are perfectly capable of sticking an IV in a patient; that is but one side of nursing. However, women, being naturally more empathetic and extroverted, excel at the social aspect of patient care, which is what separates a good nurse from a great one, assuming that nurse is competent in the scientific aspect.

(I will admit that my post was hastily written. Women do in fact work as nurses and school teachers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the middle-east.)
LOL it wasn't a straw man. It was what you said. The Middle East suffers because it doesn't let women fill said positions. That means that it either doesn't have anyone fill those positions, or that men are inept at filling them. Those are the argumentative prerequisites necessary to arrive at that position. It wasn't "hastily written," it was just plain wrong.

Quote
I'm not a "left wing creationist". I realize that males and females differ biologically, psychologically, and spiritually. However, these differences do not need to be institutionalized as they are in the middle-east; instead, gender specific roles should exist as 'cultural recommendations', not laws. Furthermore, just as a man is free to choose whether or not to produce offspring (in which case he will hopefully devote his life to his career, religion, cause, etc; rather than hedonistic pursuits), so too should a woman be able to do the same. This is what is meant by equality. The pursuit of intellectual, political, or economic endeavors by women should, however, be seen a "special calling", rather than the de facto course of action as is promulgated by liberal sources.
"Cultural recommendations" and "laws" are exactly the same thing. Laws do not exist divorced from the culture in which they emerge. In fact, it is exactly in those societies without "laws" as we know them where the consequences for going against them is the MOST severe. If Nagwa the spear-chucker's wife decides she doesn't want to have children anymore, and in fact deserves the same opportunity to be a spear-chucker too, that represents a severe cost to her husband, her children, and by extension to her tribe at large. She would be completely cut off if necessary, but of course it never is, because people accept their roles in places like this.


Quote
The middle east never conquered the world (they had their chance in the middle ages but they fell to the Mongols), unlike Western Europe, which has typically had a more 'liberal' stance on woman's place in society, and even has a longstanding tradition of queens, empresses, and duchesses.

I agree that this modern feminism has to be reeled back in, but there is such a thing as a healthy feminism.
First, Muslim societies didn't "almost" conquer the world. Whether in the form of Moors, Turks, or what have you, they were THE power in the Mediterranean until after the Renaissance was well under way. The Franks (as they collectively referred to Europeans) were seen as not only culturally inferior, but also technologically inferior; this attitude existed from the so-called Dark Ages well through the 15th century. The main reason they didn't completely conquer Europe was because they didn't see much reason to do so. The Byzantines did provide a small buffer, but you don't need much of one when you're not being pushed against particularly hard; they had plenty of wealth due to their geographic location, which allowed them to control all trade to and from the European continent. The reason for Europe's eventual success was, again, not feminism. It was Columbus' stupidity. He thought the world was a lot smaller than it was (everybody else knew he was wrong) and lucked out by finding a brand new continent - bingo, new source of wealth. Since the Muslim lands had no way of interfering with this new-found trade route, they began to shrivel up.

And longstanding tradition my ass. There is a longstanding tradition of male rule, with rare exceptions to this rule sprinkled here and there, which are remembered only BECAUSE they are rare exceptions. Get real. I bet you couldn't give me more than five seriously competitive female rulers off the top of your head without making justifications for their inclusion.

There is no such thing as healthy feminism. It is literally sick. It is a perversion of what is real. Here is what is real: men and women are different. Why should I treat different things as if they are the same? I'm not going to try to make an apple pie out of asparagus just because the asparagus is fickle and wants to be apples.

Actually, a capable woman is the whole reason for feminism's existence. Early feminist movements were more about not treating women as second class citizens, not the third wave feminist man-hating drek you see today.
fallot is absolutely correct. A capable woman IS an argument against feminism. Feminism does not exist to empower those women that are rare exceptions, are you kidding? If a woman is capable enough to fill the same position as a man, AND actually desires that position for reasons beyond wanting access to the no-girls-allows treehouse, she will prove that capability and be accepted on her own merits. The idea that a system is necessary to achieve this is nonsense. She will prove herself or she will not - that's it. Feminism exists to satiate the desires of those women who want more than they can get on their own merits. This is so obviously true that it bewilders me to see otherwise-intelligent people, such as yourself, stating otherwise. Capable people don't need help. Helpless people need help.

Actually, allow me to correct myself. Feminism does not exists to satiate women's desires. It exists to make people in power feel less guilty about their position. We live in a world where obedience is seen as weakness, authority is automatically considered suspicious, and faith is little more than a way to be criticized. Choice reigns supreme, and post-modern attitudes of "my choice is as valid as yours" is the natural consequence, even when that "my choice" is joining a LARP club and working as a gas station attendant because it's easier than having actual goals. So there is currently an immense push to force anybody who achieves more than this, and anyone who lives by the standards of strict masculine power, to feel guilty. Some succumb. Feminism emerges. If you think this is false, just ask yourself who gave women the vote. It wasn't women.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 07, 2013, 09:34:13 AM
You can see, without looking too far, the effect that feminism has had, even among yourselves.
There are probably better uses of your time.
Stamp collecting, trainspotting, and similar manly pursuits...

Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Goatreich on April 07, 2013, 09:57:42 AM
What feminism should've resulted as
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Umbrage on April 07, 2013, 10:25:14 AM
Quote
Rights do not exist

Sorry for picking out a single line here but I'm getting kinda tired of reading this false argument (here and on other forums) Here's how it works: you are born, you grow up and you have a certain sense of fairness. This feeling of fairness is a human trait and necessary for our survival, without it we wouldn't even be able to reason let alone do things like trading with other humans or have any sense of discipline.

This is where the notion that "rights exist" comes from. These unwritten rights are merely a reflection of our sense of fairness (which of course can be completely distorted for whatever reason) We are free to disagree with others about whether something is a proverbial "god given" right but to deny such a thing exists is to deny humanity. Rights don't exist in Somalia, look what good it's doing for them.

As far as feminism and the destruction of society goes:

Feminism is fine with me. Good for women that they get to have rights, oh wow we sophisticated now. But the feminists and their handlers should have never torn down the traditional values that led to big families. The west is dying out as a result of this smear campaign and our grovelling politicians (all over the west) can only offer us the short-term solution of importing more workers instead of setting up decent breeding programs and re-focusing their propaganda tools on creating larger families.

We can all be equal to the law but the natural order is based on our inequality. So just do what you're good at whether that's being a good leader, a good doctor or being a good mother. Some women are better at being a leader than being a mother but they are the exception and not the rule. It's better to take pride in this: every good leader, every good doctor, every good person was raised by a good mother (and if they weren't they were lucky they didn't turn out psychopathic (http://hereandnow.wbur.org/files/2013/02/0219_adam-lanza2.jpg)) The world needs more good people and men can't provide them, we're counting on you ladies.

Motherhead - Cradle to the Grave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PclaQ6Z_QV4)
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 07, 2013, 10:31:04 AM
How does that suggest that rights exist?
Rights do not exist.
I may be fair, but nobody has a right to my fairness.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: fallot on April 07, 2013, 10:45:11 AM
That suggests rights do not exist beyond the societal level, which was what was stated. Umbrage, is this certain sense of fairness then the same or similar across the spectrum of humanity? Does it average out into a plurality of standards (which may still be somewhat similar) or just one, or none? Something being a right implies that it is owed, and by nothing less than society (which for most people means literal reality) itself. This isn't what we get out of your breakdown, so I think its reasonable to say rights don't exist.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Umbrage on April 07, 2013, 10:58:22 AM
How does that suggest that rights exist?
Rights do not exist.
I may be fair, but nobody has a right to my fairness.

Our sense of justice exists and is necessary for our progress as a species. How else could homo-sapiens and neanderthal have engaged in trade? They were two different species who were limited in their communication yet they could find agreement on what is fair when they were trading in a time without written law.

The rights only exist in the mind but nevertheless they still exist and they serve a function. That's all I'm saying. It's part of our thought process and reflects our character.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 07, 2013, 11:09:02 AM
These are not rights, and I do not accept the assumptions you make about trading.
Fairness has - or had - nothing to do with trading.
White men traded worthless beads to red men in order to fleece them of their valuables.
Red men eagerly scooped up the priceless beads in return for their own worthless junk.
Each assigned value to what the other considered worthless.
This is the nature of trade.

Fairness, of any kind, is illusion, and only exists at all because it is taught to the young.
It is, to be sure, a useful concept, if civilization is the goal.
In the absence of civilization, it is only a burden that costs more than it returns.

Overdo fairness, and civilization suffers, thus it is a double-edged sword.
A little serves, while a lot destroys.


Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Umbrage on April 07, 2013, 11:17:06 AM
That suggests rights do not exist beyond the societal level, which was what was stated. Umbrage, is this certain sense of fairness then the same or similar across the spectrum of humanity? Does it average out into a plurality of standards (which may still be somewhat similar) or just one, or none? Something being a right implies that it is owed, and by nothing less than society (which for most people means literal reality) itself. This isn't what we get out of your breakdown, so I think its reasonable to say rights don't exist.

Yes not everybody has the same idea about what is fair but over the whole many people share the same values (don't eat your babies is a pretty decent one, don't beat your wife sometimes leads to disagreement, etc)

Rights are not owned. Rights are a belief. You can't physically own beliefs. We don't own laws either. Laws are created and then people are subjected to them. Even the creator of the laws and the people who enforce them can't be above those laws. If they are then it's called corruption. Dictators require the support of the people, the military and the industry just as much as any leader does. It will be the inherent sense of justice in the people that will cause them to embrace a new, less corrupt leader when he takes over. Whether it's through overthrowing the government or foreign intervention doesn't even matter at that point, so you can imagine the deep impact this sense of justice has. Would you tell that angry crowd that rights don't exist?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 07, 2013, 11:29:03 AM
People don't share the same values, even a bit.
This is why, for example, multiculturalism can never work, along with mass third-world immigration.
I've travelled enough, and met with enough people, that this is abundantly clear.
The very idea that everybody wants to live in peace and/or like us, is absurd to anyone with actual experience of diverse peoples.

All I see, among the chaos of society, is hordes of witless people who know nothing about anything, clinging to a house of cards, built from assumption piled upon assumption, and none of it real.

The cure for this is simple: as Lao Tzu suggests: Know Nothing!
Meaning start again. Assume nothing. Forget all you think you know.
Leave that fuckin' apple alone.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Phoenix on April 07, 2013, 12:17:38 PM
I'd sooner pay for sex than read this thread.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Umbrage on April 07, 2013, 12:27:27 PM
These are not rights, and I do not accept the assumptions you make about trading.
Fairness has - or had - nothing to do with trading.
White men traded worthless beads to red men in order to fleece them of their valuables.
Red men eagerly scooped up the priceless beads in return for their own worthless junk.
Each assigned value to what the other considered worthless.
This is the nature of trade.

Fairness, of any kind, is illusion, and only exists at all because it is taught to the young.
It is, to be sure, a useful concept, if civilization is the goal.
In the absence of civilization, it is only a burden that costs more than it returns.

Overdo fairness, and civilization suffers, thus it is a double-edged sword.
A little serves, while a lot destroys.

The nature of trade is surplus goods. What you are describing is the nature of con men.

I wouldn't call fairness an illusion either since illusions means being deceived by something or someone. Even if you think society is based on an illusion then at most you could argue that society is an illusion made real. Once it is real it is no longer an illusion, you can't argue that society doesn't exist.

Our sense of fairness is a motivation, that's all it is. And yes it is affected by upbringing and propaganda of course. It would be interesting to debate how much of that sense is natural (I'd say that's based on genetics) but most of that debate would be hypothesis since genetic studies aren't even fully accepted in the mostly politically correct world of science.

Rights and beliefs are double-edged sword but not in the way you put it. The double edge is that what you think is fair might not correspond with what someone else thinks is fair. Someone might think "hey food just grows on trees so we have a right to get free food from the supermarket!" We can see the flaw in his reasoning but who are we to say there are no rights when trying to debunk his argument? Why not instead just tell him to grow his own food or explain the basics of economics? (if he remains willfully ignorant then I believe in the right to restrain him to protect society from deteriorating)

There's this logical flaw about the "no rights" argument that irks me. If there are no rights then what gives you the right to tell people they have no rights? We're just talking about different values here.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Umbrage on April 07, 2013, 12:28:39 PM
I'd sooner pay for sex than read this thread.

Well now we all know why it took you so long to post in it.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Humanicide on April 07, 2013, 03:26:22 PM
Well then.

There is no such thing as healthy feminism. It is literally sick. It is a perversion of what is real. Here is what is real: men and women are different. Why should I treat different things as if they are the same? I'm not going to try to make an apple pie out of asparagus just because the asparagus is fickle and wants to be apples.

You shouldn't treat different things as if they are the same, but the problem here is that treating things (women) differently usually meant treating them not as well (in the past). What is sick about women wanting to be treated fairly in society? Honestly I don't think we're going to agree so I think we should just drop this part.

Capable people don't need help. Helpless people need help.

No. Helpless people need to be done away with. They can't be helped. Why would you want to even bother? Assist those who are capable to be the best.

Saudi Arabia's society works, and no, you cannot dismiss this fact away by pointing out their circumstances. Plenty of sub-Saharan nations are sitting on top of vast fields of natural resources as well; regardless, they remain a collective joke. Their societies don't work, Saudi Arabia's does.

Lol, no, it doesn't. Not for long anyway. They're running a lot of their society on fossil fuels, which are quickly being depleted. They're trying to imitate the west technologically, except that running air conditioners in the middle of the desert constantly uses a lot of energy. They have child abuse rates that are close to one in four being abused. The women in their society are pretty much treated as lower class (most women are assigned a 'guardian'), and few can ever hope to attain any real power. Lots of men marry girls who are just barely pubescent, which has an effect on the overall quality of women's education. The problem with Saudi Arabia is that they're trying to be Muslim, and modern. It doesn't work; they'll be in the shitter within the next few decades.

(not that I have a problem with men being dominant in a society, but there needs to be quality control. In SA there isn't, just any dude can claim a girl just 'cause he's a dude - doesn't matter if he's a physically abusive psycho)

Of course, children in societies that practice arranged marriage are unquestionably better-behaved than those in liberal ones. Unquestionably. You will NEVER see a child throwing a fit in the dirt of an African mud hut. Nor will you see such children growing up to be drug-addled losers.

Nope, but you will see the kids dying in the African mud hut. They don't have the fucking energy to misbehave. Not growing up to be drug addicts? Well I suppose in Ethiopia, where arranged marriages are still popular, we can just ignore the glue and paint huffing problems, along with the khat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat) (stuff's legal but it's still a problem). That's just one example.

What about a lifetime of resentment if your parents paired you up with a complete airhead? What if your arranged husband likes to get drunk and assault you?

Those societies have just as many problems. Not that I don't agree that liberal societies produce bad children, but I would avoid such sweeping generalizations in the future, they do not lend credence to your arguments.


So there is currently an immense push to force anybody who achieves more than this, and anyone who lives by the standards of strict masculine power, to feel guilty. Some succumb. Feminism emerges. If you think this is false, just ask yourself who gave women the vote. It wasn't women.

Yeah, but who ultimately persuaded those in power to give women the vote? Women. I don't think voting should be for everyone, in fact I think most people shouldn't be allowed to vote (not many of them give a shit anyway, so I don't see how this would be a problem). But the point is, I don't know if you're seeing a middle ground here. You seem to think column A is feminazi uberliberal retard, and column B is ideal meek subservient woman. Correct me if I'm missing something. I would also like to point out what Umbrage said as I really think it hits the nail squarely:

The rights only exist in the mind but nevertheless they still exist and they serve a function. That's all I'm saying. It's part of our thought process and reflects our character.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 07, 2013, 03:46:01 PM
Nearly all of you see the world as if it were NYC, and all its people as if they were Westerners.
Some of you can't run your own lives but think you can run everyone elses'.
All of you start from assumptions to make more assumptions.
The only thing you have any control over, at all, is your own behaviour.
That would be a good place to start with the business of changing anything else.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: istaros on April 07, 2013, 06:45:40 PM
The nature of trade is surplus goods. What you are describing is the nature of con men.
The nature of trade is getting something you want for something you don't, or at least for something you want less. That is not the nature of con men - although believing in something like rights would certainly lead you to think such a way. It's the nature of men. No "con" necessary.

There is nothing inherently wrong about giving up something you dislike in favor of something you do; your body does it every time it takes a dump or processes protein. If both parties in the trade end up giving away nothing in exchange for something, what's the problem? Who got conned? They're both satisfied. But, because you have this idea that value is more than a human invention, you find evil within said exchange; not because any suffering has occurred, but because it goes against what you believe. And fallot did not say rights are OWNED, he said they are OWED.

Quote
There's this logical flaw about the "no rights" argument that irks me. If there are no rights then what gives you the right to tell people they have no rights? We're just talking about different values here.
Logical flaw? Where? If there are no rights, nothing I tell people is subject to the concept. It's only a logical flaw so long as there are rights. I don't need the right to do anything I do - I am a man. I will do as I do, and there will be consequences deriving from those actions, which will inspire others to act in turn, leading to more consequences still, etc., etc. At no point does any of this need to be justified - it just is. It can be explained, but that's about it.

The only logical flaw is thinking that rights exist "just because." And although your attempt to prove their existence based on an innate human sense of fairness was noble, it does not at all reflect the general view of rights and you know it. Aside from that, it was also fruitless, because humans are innately wrong about all sorts of things; you describe nothing more than a failure of perception, one along the lines of thinking the world is flat because it that's how it looks to the naked eye. You are literally trying to tell me that "because we feel something is real, it is." I find you to be one of the better posters here, and more often than not I agree with you. Even when I don't, I never have a problem respecting you. In fact, I respect you too much to give this argument any sort of serious consideration. Get real.

If you were claiming that rights were God-given, I would still have to disagree but at least your position would be logically sound. Saying that "they only exist in our mind" cannot be rationally followed by "they still exist." THAT is a logical flaw; you know what another term is for something that exists only in the mind? Imaginary. Yes, this affects human behavior - nobody ever said otherwise. No, it is not real - mostly because humans cannot create things telekinetically. As far as I know.

You shouldn't treat different things as if they are the same, but the problem here is that treating things (women) differently usually meant treating them not as well (in the past). What is sick about women wanting to be treated fairly in society? Honestly I don't think we're going to agree so I think we should just drop this part.
So do you wish to treat them fairly or unfairly? You accept that they are different, yet also say that it's not fair to treat them as if they are. "Fair" doesn't mean "the same." If you want to treat women UNfairly, treat them as you would treat men. Of course, no feminist ACTUALLY wants this - they want men and women to be treated the same, but once they find out how men actually interact with each other, it offends them, and so they must change men's behavior to fall in line with how they actually want to be treated, which is "as women." Which doesn't even touch on the fact that a man who takes pride in his nature AS A MAN would never, ever, treat a women the same way he treats a man. Doing so is essentially a tacit approval of the idea that the concept of femininity is worthless.

Quote
No. Helpless people need to be done away with. They can't be helped. Why would you want to even bother? Assist those who are capable to be the best.
This is not how you run a society. You claim membership to an ideology that CLAIMS to seek maximization of everyone's (i.e., women's) potential; and yet drop something like this, showing that you care little for what is purportedly the driving motivation behind all sorts of -isms, including feminism. The best possible outcome is not to eliminate defects, but to turn them into successes. I know this is not usually possible, but my point is regarding your outlook.

Quote
Lol, no, it doesn't. Not for long anyway.
It doesn't, and yet it does? Although I did read the rest of your paragraph, its inclusion seems completely unnecessary when you start off contradicting your own argument. We'll see how "not long" it takes Saudi Arabia to actually end, once it ends. Until then, the fact is, that nation is successful whereas others in similarly fortunate situations are not. This is true no matter how much it bothers you.


Quote
Nope, but you will see the kids dying in the African mud hut. They don't have the fucking energy to misbehave. Not growing up to be drug addicts? Well I suppose in Ethiopia, where arranged marriages are still popular, we can just ignore the glue and paint huffing problems, along with the khat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat) (stuff's legal but it's still a problem). That's just one example.
They have tremendous energy, actually. I doubt you have actual experience living among such people, because if you did you would not be saying something so visibly false.

Quote
What about a lifetime of resentment if your parents paired you up with a complete airhead? What if your arranged husband likes to get drunk and assault you?

Those societies have just as many problems. Not that I don't agree that liberal societies produce bad children, but I would avoid such sweeping generalizations in the future, they do not lend credence to your arguments.
Like I said: interact with people who actually live these lives. Get as far away from Western influence as you can. Based on your positions in this thread, I assure you that you will be shocked at the levels of contentment you discover. Don't rely on emotional movie plots or political gambits to guide your view of worlds different from our own.


Quote
Yeah, but who ultimately persuaded those in power to give women the vote? Women. I don't think voting should be for everyone, in fact I think most people shouldn't be allowed to vote (not many of them give a shit anyway, so I don't see how this would be a problem). But the point is, I don't know if you're seeing a middle ground here. You seem to think column A is feminazi uberliberal retard, and column B is ideal meek subservient woman. Correct me if I'm missing something. I would also like to point out what Umbrage said
Women should not be able to vote, but that is only because they first should not be a sizable presence in the workforce, which is a whole other can of worms. Men persuaded each other to give women the vote. The notion that women convinced them to do this is ridiculous. If this were true, and it were also true that women were owed this "right," howcome it took tens of thousands of years to achieve this state? Are you saying that women were too dumb to convince their men in the past? Are you saying that they were so trodden-upon that they were literally incapable of standing up for themselves? Or are you saying that they understood the concept of a division in responsibilities among men and women? I don't follow the (retarded) idea that people in older times were dumber than ourselves, so I'm inclined to follow the latter. Most people follow the middle proposition, which sounds stupid to me, as we're not talking about a small percentage of the population. When people are that beaten-down, they revolt. Men gave women the vote because they benefited from doing so. This is just plain old human nature. If their women in fact convinced them to do this, they did it by convincing them it was for their own benefit. Of course, there is no possible way to convince someone that giving away power for free is beneficial to your own position of power, so there had to be a trade; in exchange for losing power, they were made to feel noble. Nobody gives something for nothing. And even if men had, in fact, given women this privilege for free, out of a true sense of nobility, all that does is show feminism to be completely UNnecessary - because men had more power, and were just in its use.

I don't see columns A or B in women's behavior at all. I see columns A and B in men's views of reality, with women essentially molding themselves somewhere in the field that exists between these two standards. But women act essentially the same everywhere you go - there are varying degrees to which they reinforce their own varying traits, but the primary essence of womanhood I have never seen changed. That is one of the inherent qualities (not "strengths", not "weaknesses") of the female; she is malleable. Ultimately, though, it is still men who set the field on which women play. And this will always be the case. And it is good.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 07, 2013, 07:02:55 PM
Wow. That was some read :)
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Cheeseburger Zombie on April 07, 2013, 07:20:26 PM
You shouldn't treat different things as if they are the same, but the problem here is that treating things (women) differently usually meant treating them not as well (in the past).

Were they mistreated? It doesn't seem that way to me.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Wild on April 07, 2013, 08:44:14 PM
istaros, crow:

Thank you both for what you wrote in this thread. While intellectually to me, it seemed foolhardy to deny women the right to vote (women and men together build the family, why should they not build civilization together?), you have given me things to contemplate.

By which i mean, pointing out the intellect has limits that cannot be covered by experience. And I have no experience of another perspective. So where does my opinion arise?

I've been thrown into a state of agnosticism about my own belief. Perhaps in civilization-building, it's man's role to run politics? Even our society did that only a couple hundred years ago, and by most accounts it was a more pleasant time.

Or perhaps you're both backwards misogynistic closet-Muslims, which is what a liberal would say. Although to me, that seems unlikely.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 07, 2013, 09:04:42 PM
You are right: Istaros sure knows his stuff.
How did he get there?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: fallot on April 07, 2013, 10:50:59 PM
Not that I don't agree that liberal societies produce bad children.

Liberal societies don't produce children!
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: istaros on April 07, 2013, 11:11:50 PM
Not that I don't agree that liberal societies produce bad children.

Liberal societies produce nothing but children!
I fixed this for you.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: fallot on April 07, 2013, 11:48:35 PM
I don't follow the (retarded) idea that people in older times were dumber than ourselves

Perhaps this should be reconsidered. People in past times almost certainly did have a lower IQ than is prevalent in the world today, but maybe that's the key to it. With a lower IQ, they might be more likely to use "built in" or "common sense" (gene-derived, universe derived, tradition derived, however you want to call it) approaches to problems rather than pure rationality. The struggle against death leads to greater and greater complexity, to the point where the faculty which leads to this complexity overwhelms common sense; intelligence. You can even see this trend right now, conservatives have a lower average IQ than liberals, the higher up you go on the IQ scale the more dysfunction appears. It seems to come with a certain openness, whether internal or external (and imo, pathological, see Haidt). That would make us both smarter and much dumber than past people, in a manner of speaking.

The notion of this "Dark Enlightenment" (name pinched from Roissy) requires some feeling to it, it is rational in acceptance of the irrational aspects of human nature, not pretending it should be otherwise like liberals like to (pretending rationality or a blank slate nature).

Edit: Relevant! http://mypostingcareer.com/forums/topic/56-the-stupidity-of-intelligence/
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 08, 2013, 12:00:37 AM
I must be an exception to your rule.
There's nobody more (laterally) intelligent, nor anyone more sensible.
And nobody more conservative, in its purest sense.
But, as I am so fond of pointing out: I don't think.
Intelligence, alone, is reliably counterproductive. It must be subordinate to common-sense.
Anybody can be intelligent, through accident of birth. Not everyone, however, can be sensible.

Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: fallot on April 08, 2013, 01:25:26 AM
I must be an exception to your rule.
There's nobody more (laterally) intelligent, nor anyone more sensible.
And nobody more conservative, in its purest sense.
But, as I am so fond of pointing out: I don't think.
Intelligence, alone, is reliably counterproductive. It must be subordinate to common-sense.
Anybody can be intelligent, through accident of birth. Not everyone, however, can be sensible.

Bear in mind I am not talking about a dichotomy where more intelligence = less common sense, it's just more likely that intelligent people would tend to ignore their common sense (which can be non-rational, but arrives at correct conclusions more often than not) and hence leave it underdeveloped. You can of course, still realize this, whether independently or because of a society that instills a certain point of view in you that is conducive towards this realization. Conservatism isn't just in your head, it's also in your heart. You don't just realize the value of conservation but feel it to be a beautiful thing.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Umbrage on April 08, 2013, 02:02:09 AM
The nature of trade is surplus goods. What you are describing is the nature of con men.
The nature of trade is getting something you want for something you don't, or at least for something you want less.

The nature of trade is surplus goods.

Quote from: dictionary
sur·plus
1. something that remains above what is used or needed.
2. an amount, quantity, etc., greater than needed.
3. agricultural produce or a quantity of food grown by a nation or area in excess of its needs, especially such a quantity of food purchased and stored by a governmental program of guaranteeing farmers a specific price for certain crops.

That is not the nature of con men - although believing in something like rights would certainly lead you to think such a way. It's the nature of men. No "con" necessary.

Quote from: dictionary
con (adjective)
1. involving abuse of confidence: a con trick.
verb (used with object)
2. to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
3. to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.
noun
4. a confidence game or swindle.
5. a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk: He had a dozen different cons for getting out of paying traffic tickets.

CONTEXT:

White men traded worthless beads to red men in order to fleece them of their valuables.
Red men eagerly scooped up the priceless beads in return for their own worthless junk.
Each assigned value to what the other considered worthless.
This is the nature of trade.

The nature of trade is surplus goods. What you are describing is the nature of con men.


Quote from: dictionary
trade
1. the act or process of buying, selling, or exchanging commodities, at either wholesale or retail, within a country or between countries: domestic trade; foreign trade.
2. a purchase or sale; business deal or transaction.
3. an exchange of items, usually without payment of money.
4. any occupation pursued as a business or livelihood.
5. some line of skilled manual or mechanical work; craft: the trade of a carpenter; printer's trade.

NOW LOOK AGAIN:

Quote from: dictionary
con (adjective)
1. involving abuse of confidence: a con trick.
verb (used with object)
2. to swindle; trick: That crook conned me out of all my savings.
3. to persuade by deception, cajolery, etc.
noun
4. a confidence game or swindle.
5. a lie, exaggeration, or glib self-serving talk: He had a dozen different cons for getting out of paying traffic tickets.

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME DESPITE YOUR CROOKED WORLD VIEW.


There is nothing inherently wrong about giving up something you dislike in favor of something you do; your body does it every time it takes a dump or processes protein.

Talk about straw man! Let's just compare economy with taking a shit! Enlighten us, oh wise one!

If both parties in the trade end up giving away nothing in exchange for something, what's the problem? Who got conned? They're both satisfied.

Except they don't give away nothing for something. You're oversimplifying this. Even the meeting and the transport of goods costs time and gold. And unless you're some isolated tribe you'll have plenty of other trading partners to choose from. And sometimes it's better for business to let products rot away or to even destroy your own stock, you don't see supermarkets handing out food because "otherwise they'd have to throw it away" do you?

But, because you have this idea that value is more than a human invention

I don't. Go back a few posts and read what I wrote. A sense of justice is a human trait. Logic is a human invention.

, you find evil within said exchange; not because any suffering has occurred, but because it goes against what you believe.

Bullshit. What do my beliefs have to do with other people's sense of fairness? You're confusing me for a white knight. My personal beliefs are unimportant in this matter and we're talking about a 2 dimensional example that crow provided.

All I'm saying is [paraphrase]"gosh guys did you know that everybody has a sense of fairness? That means that rights do exist because in our hearts we believe in them! Awww, isn't that cute?"[/paraphrase]

Why are you being so defensive about that? Rights are part of our aesthetics: "oh wow that's beautiful, oh wow that's powerful, oh wow that's unfair." So to argue that rights don't exist is foolish. So you believe in the right to trick others during trade? Then you still believe in rights! You're just having a difference of aesthetics. As a result you're like one side of a coin telling the other side it doesn't exist.

And fallot did not say rights are OWNED, he said they are OWED.

I misread something but that doesn't make the argument I made here or there any less true. At least I only misread a word and not entire posts. :'( mfw someone does that.

Quote from: Umbrage
There's this logical flaw about the "no rights" argument that irks me. If there are no rights then what gives you the right to tell people they have no rights? We're just talking about different values here.
Logical flaw? Where? If there are no rights, nothing I tell people is subject to the concept. It's only a logical flaw so long as there are rights.

Check out these monkeys and tell me again that rights don't exist and that a sense of fairness has no place in the natural order:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY

I don't need the right to do anything I do - I am a man. I will do as I do, and there will be consequences deriving from those actions, which will inspire others to act in turn, leading to more consequences still, etc., etc. At no point does any of this need to be justified - it just is. It can be explained, but that's about it.

And how exactly do those consequences occur? Can you argue that those consequences have absolutely nothing to do with a sense of justice? Someone hurts you and you won't fight back? If you fight back then why? Because you don't want to be injured? So you believe you have the right not be injured? If you believe you don't have the right not to be injured then why are you fighting back? Because it hurts? So what if it hurts? So what if you die? Yet your natural instinct compels you to fight or flee for survival, or your instincts abandon you and you succumb to your fears and become the plaything of your oppressor. It's all possible and it's all shaped by our sense of justice on which our discipline and moral codes are based.

The only logical flaw is thinking that rights exist "just because."

Another straw man. Nobody said rights exist "just because" Rights exist by extension of the sense of fairness which is a part of human nature. I've been saying this the whole time.

And although your attempt to prove their existence based on an innate human sense of fairness was noble, it does not at all reflect the general view of rights and you know it. Aside from that, it was also fruitless, because humans are innately wrong about all sorts of things; you describe nothing more than a failure of perception, one along the lines of thinking the world is flat because it that's how it looks to the naked eye.

So much paradox it hurts. How can humans be considered wrong if there is no right? Stick to your story: humans just are and everything is a consequence completely unrelated to our sense of fairness. That's what you were saying earlier anyway. You just contradicted yourself.

You are literally trying to tell me that "because we feel something is real, it is." I find you to be one of the better posters here, and more often than not I agree with you. Even when I don't, I never have a problem respecting you. In fact, I respect you too much to give this argument any sort of serious consideration. Get real.

We don't just feel justice, it motivates us. I explained this a few posts ago. It is part of human nature and it is part of our aesthetics. It binds people in agreement or it drives them apart.

If you were claiming that rights were God-given, I would still have to disagree but at least your position would be logically sound. Saying that "they only exist in our mind" cannot be rationally followed by "they still exist." THAT is a logical flaw; you know what another term is for something that exists only in the mind? Imaginary. Yes, this affects human behavior - nobody ever said otherwise. No, it is not real - mostly because humans cannot create things telekinetically. As far as I know.

Our sense of fairness exists because it serves a function. It's a cognitive ability, something that helps humans reason. I've explained it all before by now.

Up next...
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: istaros on April 08, 2013, 06:24:48 AM
Haha. I don't have time for a full reply at the moment, as I'm merely getting ready for the day - just wanted to say that I doubt we would agree on that either :p And pointing out the distinction between fallot's "owed" vs. your mistakenly-read "owned" was not a criticism; I was giving you the opportunity to modify the relevant paragraph you wrote to be more effective and appropriate to what he actually said, as the two words mean completely different things.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on April 08, 2013, 10:01:11 AM
I don't have time for a full fledged reply, but here's a quick thought.

Saying rights don't exist is like saying morals don't exist: true, but it kind of misses the point. Instead of asking if they are 'real', ask if they are realistic. As in, are they useful to us?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 08, 2013, 10:13:58 AM
I don't have time for a full fledged reply, but here's a quick thought.

Saying rights don't exist is like saying morals don't exist: true, but it kind of misses the point. Instead of asking if they are 'real', ask if they are realistic. As in, are they useful to us?


Realistic as in as if they were real?
Useful to us? Discard anything considered to not be useful? Like death? Pain? Discomfort?
Does anybody know what 'real' is, anymore?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on April 08, 2013, 12:47:28 PM
Useful = serves a purpose. All the things you mentioned serve a purpose.

Could a politically dissident community, such as this one, exist in the Soviet Union, where there were no boundaries as to what the government could and couldn't do to you, aka rights? Of course not; we'd all be in gulags.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 08, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
Useful = serves a purpose. All the things you mentioned serve a purpose.

Could a politically dissident community, such as this one, exist in the Soviet Union, where there were no boundaries as to what the government could and couldn't do to you, aka rights? Of course not; we'd all be in gulags.


As it happens, as of a couple of weeks ago, this site has started running as a hybrid experiment.
Something between an absolute monarchy, and a benign dictatorship.
And although it is populated by a vocal minority of Bolshevik n'er-do-wells, nobody has been executed so far.
Dissidence is tolerated in this experimental regime.
Whereas non-productive destruction is not.
It might be good to ponder what that means, for a moment.

No. There are no 'rights' here. None.
And we hope that we will see a workable solution to peoples' knee-jerk gravitation to destructiveness.
Treat each other as possible brothers in a possible brotherhood, and see how that works.
You never know.

Edit: I should add that my own decisions are subject to Divine Intervention by God's Representative Here On Earth, and should my performance be found wanting, I shall be tossed out of the garden to who knows where.
The site has an owner. The Monarch. He assigns a chief. The chief rules, but is himself ruled by the monarch.
Streamlined, or what?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Dinaric Leather on April 09, 2013, 06:10:47 AM
Really? I had always thought Vegas had it legalized or at least decriminalized. Why is it tolerated so much, then?
Nope, it's 100% illegal. It isn't really tolerated either, it's just so rampant the state doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of stopping it. They do organize crackdowns on occasion. Ever since the mob lost the last of it's (major) influence there in the early 90s the city has been trying to make the strip more "family friendly".
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Humanicide on April 09, 2013, 02:28:29 PM
Nope, it's 100% illegal. It isn't really tolerated either, it's just so rampant the state doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of stopping it. They do organize crackdowns on occasion. Ever since the mob lost the last of it's (major) influence there in the early 90s the city has been trying to make the strip more "family friendly".

"family friendly" - I fucking hate that term.

But anyway, that's interesting. Do you think it would be wiser for the city to regulate and subsidize it? Could potentially bring in a lot of $ - with peoples' fascination of money nowadays I'm surprised they haven't.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Humanicide on April 09, 2013, 05:37:01 PM
Not that I don't agree that liberal societies produce bad children.

Liberal societies produce nothing but children!
I fixed this for you.

Alternatively, manchildren? Kidults? Lots of fun names for them. Also, I don't feel like quoting everything from your post, istaros, so allow me to address your points here.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

"So do you wish to treat them fairly or unfairly? You accept that they are different, yet also say that it's not fair to treat them as if they are. "Fair" doesn't mean "the same."

So what does fair mean? Treated as lessers? Equals? Superiors? I wish to treat women with respect and reverence, but I do not think of them as lower than I. Is that fair?

___________________________________________________________________________________________

"Of course, no feminist ACTUALLY wants this - they want men and women to be treated the same, but once they find out how men actually interact with each other, it offends them, and so they must change men's behavior to fall in line with how they actually want to be treated, which is "as women."

Truth, however you are making a blanket statement again. There are plenty of women who consort with men as friends instead of women. Think tomboys, they're not uncommon. Not all women are 'ladylike'; not all wish to be treated as such - and this is not just a modern phenomenon. (Though it is far more common now)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

"This is not how you run a society. You claim membership to an ideology that CLAIMS to seek maximization of everyone's (i.e., women's) potential; and yet drop something like this, showing that you care little for what is purportedly the driving motivation behind all sorts of -isms, including feminism. "

No, I said that because - unlike the implications in your statement above - I don't think women are helpless. Additionally I never said I support feminism outright - that's just something you've tacked on to my statements. I happen to support some things which fall in line with feminism, but not really the movement as a whole, especially considering what happened to it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

"It doesn't, and yet it does? Although I did read the rest of your paragraph, its inclusion seems completely unnecessary when you start off contradicting your own argument."

Blame my exhaustion and lack of proofreading on that flub. Glad you looked over the info I gave though.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

"They have tremendous energy, actually. I doubt you have actual experience living among such people, because if you did you would not be saying something so visibly false."

I have no experience living in Africa, true. I have no doubt that many in Africa live happy, healthy lives. But what I was getting at is that we on this board seem to idealize these more 'traditional' societies, and sometimes lack objectivity when discussing them. The kids in Ethiopia may have energy, but I can bet a lot of them would love to read. (literacy rate is around 30%)

___________________________________________________________________________________________

"Like I said: interact with people who actually live these lives. Get as far away from Western influence as you can. Based on your positions in this thread, I assure you that you will be shocked at the levels of contentment you discover. Don't rely on emotional movie plots or political gambits to guide your view of worlds different from our own."

I'm not shocked, man. You're projecting. I've interacted with a great many people from non-Western countries, and most of them were incredibly pleasant. Many interesting discussions were had on aspects of their country and day-to-day lives. I don't rely on movies or political gambits for my opinions, I read, discuss and listen. Again, I don't doubt that many are content living this way (and that it holds advantages over Western society) - but I still hold to what I have said. There are significant disadvantages, and they shouldn't be swept under the rug without discussion.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

"If this were true, and it were also true that women were owed this "right," howcome it took tens of thousands of years to achieve this state? Are you saying that women were too dumb to convince their men in the past? Are you saying that they were so trodden-upon that they were literally incapable of standing up for themselves? Or are you saying that they understood the concept of a division in responsibilities among men and women?"

I'm saying it's probably a combination of the three, if anything. There have been a lot of dumb women, a lot of dumb laws that have restricted women, and a lot of women who played their role alongside the man. At some point, the dumb women got mad at the laws and the women playing their roles, and now you have modern feminism. Besides, the concept of rights didn't come along til we were more evolved, why use the example of tens of thousands of years when humans back then couldn't even comprehend that shit?
___________________________________________________________________________________________

"But women act essentially the same everywhere you go - there are varying degrees to which they reinforce their own varying traits, but the primary essence of womanhood I have never seen changed."

I've seen those who defy this. It's a shame we are limited by our own experiences.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

"Ultimately, though, it is still men who set the field on which women play. And this will always be the case. And it is good."

You forget the disclaimer: AS LONG AS THE MEN ARE GOOD, IT IS GOOD. There have been too many shitheads in the past who have forgotten that just because a woman may be the caregiver, she does not deserve to be spit upon. We have to solve men, before we solve women.

Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: death metal black metal on April 10, 2013, 07:30:11 AM
SHEEP ANUS NOW
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: aquarius on April 10, 2013, 09:33:03 AM
Hey, while we're on the subject of whores, I found this (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/06/04/malaysia-police-slammed-for-cattle-branding-suspected-prostitutes/) old article which always gives me a bit of a chuckle.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Tralfamadorian on April 12, 2013, 09:12:21 PM
Women are often flighty, passive, sentimental, and overall more susceptible to emotion.

But Nature, in its infinite wisdom, gave men opposite, but equally harmful if left unchecked, vices: stubbornness, callousness, Machiavellianism, and overall greater susceptibility to lust, be it after carnal pleasures, money, or power.

Virtually every aspect of society, from politics to academia, from business to religion, benefits from having some degree of mixture of the sexes, as they complement each other by compensating for the other's inherent weaknesses.

Also, it should go without saying that these traits are not mutually exclusive and should not be treated as absolutes. Humans are biological entities, and the only absolute in biology is death.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Eleison on April 12, 2013, 11:36:04 PM
Regarding the right to vote I think people kind of missed the point.  The question is not whether or not women should be allowed to vote, it is whether we should select our leaders by a vote in the first place and if so how should the right to vote be earned?  If we are to have a vote, something which is probably not a good idea anyway then people should have had to have demonstrated their capacity to make an informed choice about leadership in some way, the gender of the person is only a secondary, and probably irrelevant consideration.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: trystero on April 13, 2013, 04:05:37 AM
Within the current system (not questioning democracy itself i.e.), since we no longer have the vote restricted to the landed, I always thought it would be a good idea to have one vote per household. I do think women voting is a poor idea, gender does matter here. Averaging it out, women are more materialistic and prone to being swayed towards political positions with emotional fervour (Thank you Obama!!!). They are also more prone to rationalize; something both sexes are guilty of true, but not equally so. Informed choices dont really matter that much on large scales considering humans are fundamentally irrational and can list what they believe to be informed reasons after the fact whether or not that was the actual case. Do the members here believe that it is good for women to have political power independent of men?

Then again, I consider the pursuit of a career to be an exceptionally poor idea for women as well (in general). No better way for a nation to die by its own hands. Lots of short term material reward though; especially for things like the advertising industry.

There is a womanly aspect to liberalism. Unfortunately, modern smart male types have big hearts and modern women resemble men more than ever. Additionally, men are just hard-wired to have a patron/protective instinct towards women and this contributes here. Therefore the traditional wisdom about the feminine nature, I have found, does not sit well even with some supposedly anti-feminist types. At some level, they seem to wish for some kind of equality. I think that is grossly unfair on femininity, which is beautiful independent of its relationship to masculinity and male pursuits. Testosterone is the magical difference; the go-getter hormone, foetal exposure to which results in subtle changes in addition to obvious ones.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 13, 2013, 10:59:53 AM
Good comment Trystero.
There are some left-oriented people here, along with the rest, and such people automatically assume certain things to be 'good', such as equality across the board, and sex is irrelevant, etc.
There is no convincing or persuading them otherwise, because the very nature of left-leaning thought precludes the questioning of certain quasi-truths.
You know, and I know, that women respond very differently to life than men do.
Yet the truth remains that these days, the lines have become very blurred between male and female.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Humanicide on April 13, 2013, 05:38:14 PM
......the questioning of certain quasi-truths.

If it is a quasi-truth, then it is not truth. So I should indeed question it. Or perhaps I misunderstand you?

If we are to have a vote, something which is probably not a good idea anyway then people should have had to have demonstrated their capacity to make an informed choice about leadership in some way, the gender of the person is only a secondary, and probably irrelevant consideration.

Yes. I agree. Why even bother casting a vote if you know nothing about what the running parties or their candidates stand for?

I'm not against voting (the idea of it) but there needs to be strict selections of who can and cannot.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 13, 2013, 05:54:09 PM
Sure, you should question a quasi-truth. But can you?
Leftists are unable to question a good many assumptive truths.
If you can question anything that poses as truth, you are not a leftist.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Eleison on April 13, 2013, 08:00:20 PM
I do think women voting is a poor idea, gender does matter here. Averaging it out, women are more materialistic and prone to being swayed towards political positions with emotional fervour...

I think this is an interesting point, but the question remains why should gender be a primary factor in selecting who has the right to vote?  In my opinion it is not only the majority of women but also the majority of men that are not capable of making an intelligent choice about our leadership, and if we were to be selective enough to pick out which men have this capacity then there is no reason we cannot do the same for women as well, even though the number of women who meet these requirements would be smaller.

Having said all that, as long as we select our leaders by any kind of public vote I doubt we will see a competent government.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Cheeseburger Zombie on April 16, 2013, 09:17:01 AM
Why not discriminate both ways? No women and not most men. Fuckin' easy
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Humanicide on April 16, 2013, 11:14:51 AM
Why not discriminate both ways? No women and not most men. Fuckin' easy

That's the complete opposite of his point, and a view that he threw an argument against. You're just saying the same thing he opposed.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Cheeseburger Zombie on April 16, 2013, 02:01:59 PM
I'm saying "discriminate" against women and most men. He doesn't like that?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Eleison on April 16, 2013, 07:56:59 PM
Obviously I wasn't clear enough the first time.  I am saying that if you are making the required effort to select the minority of men who are capable of making an intelligent decision about the leadership of a nation, then you already have the necessary systems in place to select the (smaller) minority of women with the same capabilities. 

We are not concerned with gender but rather with someone's capacity to make a decision about leadership, the fact that it is likely that fewer women are capable of this is really not even a relevant issue.  It is really only due to a historical events that we even consider eligibility to vote in terms of gender.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Cheeseburger Zombie on April 16, 2013, 08:36:05 PM
Gotta differ with ya here. Women are geared toward their stuff, guys toward their stuff. Women's stuff doesn't include politics, which is a nasty game.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 16, 2013, 09:01:59 PM
Women choose better steaks, flowers, colours.
Men choose better outcomes for providing steaks, flowers, and colours infrastructure.


Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Eleison on April 16, 2013, 09:05:14 PM
Hypothetical scenario.  You have an aptitude test (doesn't matter what for) in which there are 10 questions, all of which must be answered correctly to pass.  200 people take the test, 100 men and 100 women.  Of the 100 men 10 pass, of the 100 women 1 passes.  Should the fact that the woman represents a smaller minority of her gender mean that her results are discounted?

This isn't even a significant issue really but it's just common sense.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 16, 2013, 09:19:48 PM
Let that one above-average woman represent her gender, and you're right back to the seeds of feminism again.
It's not that women can't.
It's that not enough of them can.

Men can't have babies. Women can. Each gender has things only it can do.
Any man who says otherwise deserves to be obsoleted into extinction.



Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Eleison on April 16, 2013, 09:25:15 PM
No I believe that feminism is born out of a system that became too rigid to allow the exceptional women to achieve their potential.  Any political or social system that cannot facilitate exceptions to its rules must already be quite weak in my opinion.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 16, 2013, 09:30:22 PM
Women of exceptional talent have rarely been held back.
Mary Shelly. Florence Nightingale. Grace Darling. Cleopatra. Boadicea...
History is full of superior women who beat all the odds to become historically important.
This far predates any ideas of feminism.
Feminism is about losers posing as uber, and screaming loudly enough to get their way.
That is what makes a weak society.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Eleison on April 16, 2013, 09:35:38 PM
I agree, and I think we are now making the same point.  What I was saying that artificially restricting these exceptional women like the ones you mention purely because of their gender is a problem.  Any civilization worthy of the name will recognize exceptional qualities in an individual regardless of their gender or other factors.  Note that modern society does the opposite, it seeks to elevate individuals based on any factors other than aptitude and quality, such as gender, race etc...

I am not trying to justify feminism, which, like many modern developments was unjustified even though it did have a cause.  Trying to uncover the cause is not the same thing as saying that something was a good idea.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 16, 2013, 09:47:41 PM
Hmmm. I didn't imagine you were really as dumb and unter as you seemed to be, by your comments.
See how important it is to be clear and unambiguous.
I swear, half the comments I read, here, and everywhere else, are practically indecipherable in terms of what they actually set out to express.

What is clear, to me, is this:
Until feminism appeared, western nations were generally doing very well, especially in terms of national homogeneity.
Post-feminism, all of them are on a very visible downward spiral into chaos.

Personally, I find truly uber women adorable. But there are so very few of them, that it becomes academic.
I would have gladly given up my alpha-male status, to a more likely female candidate, but they have seemed to be in acutely short supply.

Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Eleison on April 16, 2013, 10:22:07 PM
I really wasn't aware that I was being unclear, I guess I thought the point I was making was fairly self-explanatory. 

As far as feminism is concerned, I don't think it is the sole cause for the decline of Western civilization, if anything it is one of a number of symptoms that occurred as an inevitable result of the humanist ideals formulated during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.  Note that the European aristocracy was being undermined from this time onwards.

One final point which connects to something that you have said.  No one is born a man or a woman by accident, and there are inherent limitations and abilities imposed by one's gender which is above all a spiritual archetype.  However, the very nature of the modern era, where everything is inverted and nature itself is under assault forces us to make exceptions where perhaps in a more normal environment these would not have been necessary.  This is a very confusing time and trying to strike the right balance between ideals and practicality is far from easy.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 16, 2013, 10:41:51 PM
You see it as being no accident which gender one is born into?
Perhaps you might enlarge upon this?
What do you know, and what do you choose to believe?
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Eleison on April 16, 2013, 11:31:38 PM
"If birth is not a matter of chance, then it is not a coincidence for a being to "awaken" to itself in the body of a man or a woman.  Here too, the physical difference should be viewed as the equivalent of a spiritual difference; hence a being is a man or a woman in a physical way only because a being is either masculine or feminine in a transcendental way; sexual differentiation, far from being an irrelevant factor in relation to spirit, is the sign that points to a particular vocation and to a distinctive dharma."

Julius Evola - Revolt Against the Modern World

This is not an easy thing to explain, since it presupposes a certain understanding of the world that goes beyond the scope of a forum post, but I will try to offer some context.  The relationship man-woman, is not simply a biological accident, it corresponds to a duality and a complementarity that is visible everywhere is nature.  This is because this duality is an essential part of the metaphysical foundation of the entire universe, this is made quite clear in certain formulations from Eastern philosophies such as Yin-Yang and Atma-Maya.  Therefore being born a man or a woman is not simply a biological accident, it defines one's relationship to the universe in a very profound way.

This may seem somewhat at odds with what I was saying earlier, although I maintain that there are always exceptional cases and there is no reason not to treat these as such.  Also as far as voting is concerned, if we must return to this tired subject, the nature of a Western democracy is so profane that it basically rules out the possibility of the application or spiritual truths in any meaningful way.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: crow on April 17, 2013, 12:26:28 AM
Thank you. There's food for thought.
My knowledge on this subject is paradoxical, and really isn't knowledge at all.
Completely true, and completely false, in view of the direction of one's face towards the sun.
Simply put: it is what it is.
As always.
Title: Re: Buying whores
Post by: Frostbitten on April 20, 2013, 03:59:03 PM
"If birth is not a matter of chance, then it is not a coincidence for a being to "awaken" to itself in the body of a man or a woman.  Here too, the physical difference should be viewed as the equivalent of a spiritual difference; hence a being is a man or a woman in a physical way only because a being is either masculine or feminine in a transcendental way; sexual differentiation, far from being an irrelevant factor in relation to spirit, is the sign that points to a particular vocation and to a distinctive dharma."

Julius Evola - Revolt Against the Modern World

This is not an easy thing to explain, since it presupposes a certain understanding of the world that goes beyond the scope of a forum post, but I will try to offer some context.  The relationship man-woman, is not simply a biological accident, it corresponds to a duality and a complementarity that is visible everywhere is nature.  This is because this duality is an essential part of the metaphysical foundation of the entire universe, this is made quite clear in certain formulations from Eastern philosophies such as Yin-Yang and Atma-Maya.  Therefore being born a man or a woman is not simply a biological accident, it defines one's relationship to the universe in a very profound way.

This may seem somewhat at odds with what I was saying earlier, although I maintain that there are always exceptional cases and there is no reason not to treat these as such.  Also as far as voting is concerned, if we must return to this tired subject, the nature of a Western democracy is so profane that it basically rules out the possibility of the application or spiritual truths in any meaningful way.

That Evola quote is spot on. I tend to think about the issue in a similar manner:

Being born a man or a woman is not an accident, it's a MISSION.


(http://lantosfellows.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/perfect-aryan-family.jpg)