# Is paying for sex bad



## lakecreek (Nov 2, 2011)

I'm about to turn 26 years old in July and never had sex before and its sort of bothering me that I have not. One night I was getting some pizza and I saw this prostitute on the corner and gave me a idea that I should just pay for it like some men do. Of course, I wouldn't touch the ones from the street but rather hire a good one that will least cost $ 200.00 to $ 400.00 an hour. Some people think the thought of paying for it is horrible, at first I thought so too, but now entering my late 20's I don't care much. I also realize the risk of diseases but that can happen with anyone that is not in the escort business, and I have heard they care much about their health. Sometime I wonder if that would make me a bad person because I'm paying for such a service.


----------



## Luna Sea (Apr 4, 2012)

No. It's not something I'd personally do, but I don't see anything wrong with someone choosing to do it as long as the prostitute is doing it out of choice (obviously using a trafficked sex slave is disgusting).


----------



## Ventura (May 5, 2009)

It would not make you a bad person... just something you should think about before doing :/ ...


----------



## Luka92 (Dec 13, 2011)

It's a matter of opinion. If you really want to do it, then do it.


----------



## BKrakow (Jul 8, 2010)

I don't think it's that big a deal. then again, I'm a pervert.


----------



## InfiniteBlaze (Jan 27, 2011)

No, but spending that much money just to get laid is a bad idea when you can just jack off for free.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

Good question, for which my answer is do what you feel is right. But be very careful!


----------



## unknown123 (Dec 21, 2011)

It isn't a bad thing, but it is illegal in many places.


----------



## Nogy (Feb 13, 2011)

Hehe how ironic, i just got done watching an episode of Cops where all they did was undercover prostitution stings the whole episode. 

I don't really have an opinion of if its bad or whatever though. I think most of the time its harmless, but there are a few circumstances in which its ****ed up. One girl on the episode said she started prostituting at age 13, and she also had a bunch of welts on her arm and back from where her pimp would hit her with a wire she said.


----------



## Silent Image (Dec 22, 2010)

It's your money

Is $500 worth the 5 minutes?


----------



## Mirror (Mar 16, 2012)

I don't think it's bad as long as you know that you're not going to regret it years down the road. Just be careful.


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

I think that your uncertainty is reason enough to support that this isn't the right thing to do. 

If you haven't had sex yet and you pay for it now you will want it even more but you will still lack the ability to get it without money. It will spring a vicious cycle unless you find another way to get sex. It would suck if you'd have to keep paying.


Is is a bad thing? Well, that all depends on you (the uncertainty throws hints) but beyond the morals is the possibility of an addiction.


----------



## UgShy (Mar 6, 2012)

Not something i would ever do


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

lakecreek said:


> I'm about to turn 26 years old in July and never had sex before and its sort of bothering me that I have not. One night I was getting some pizza and I saw this prostitute on the corner and gave me a idea that I should just pay for it like some men do. Of course, I wouldn't touch the ones from the street but rather hire a good one that will least cost $ 200.00 to $ 400.00 an hour. Some people think the thought of paying for it is horrible, at first I thought so too, but now entering my late 20's I don't care much. I also realize the risk of diseases but that can happen with anyone that is not in the escort business, and I have heard they care much about their health. Sometime I wonder if that would make me a bad person because I'm paying for such a service.


I see no problem with it at all.


----------



## minimized (Nov 17, 2007)

That's what society wants you to believe, but I'm not one to say that it's _bad_.

It should be your choice.


----------



## Farideh (Nov 13, 2011)

Don't have sex with prostitutes if you are. TRUST ME. You wouldn't want to die from AIDS.


----------



## rapidfox1 (Sep 13, 2010)

Yes.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

Luka92 said:


> *It's a matter of opinion.* If you really want to do it, then do it.


Agree. Some people have no problem with it other are so against it. It's all about how you feel about it. Personally I have no problems with it. Again the stereotype about all escorts have STDs/AIDS is stupid and for most not true. If you go to an high end one or maybe those legal brothels they do get tested and take care of their health. I dunno about streetwalkers though. So if you wanna do it maybe look for some online in your area that has good reviews. Yes there's always risk..but I mean we take risks everyday in life.

If you are comfortable with doing it and have the money then do it..


----------



## TragicDreamz (May 9, 2012)

Everybody pays for sex in some way but the way you plan on paying for it I wouldn't suggest.


----------



## BananaCat (Jan 30, 2012)

I would just be extremely careful not to get arrested or in a dangerous situation. Personally, I'd be worried the risks may outweigh the benefits. Maybe you can meet someone online?


----------



## Dissonance (Dec 27, 2011)

It's illegal, so I personally would not do it. I would like my first to be someone who at least isn't paid by other guys to do it as well.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

^ You talking about with dinner and dates and all that?

Or something else....


----------



## UgShy (Mar 6, 2012)

You guys know that having sex isnt going to magically take away any problems right?


----------



## CopadoMexicano (Aug 21, 2004)

meganmila said:


> ^ You talking about with dinner and dates and all that?
> 
> Or something else....


Yeah I meant in general like always going out on dates :um


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

If you don't care about your virginity and simply want to have sex, I don't see anything wrong with it.
But if you are the type of person who's always wanted to lose their virginity with a person they love/appreciate, I wouldn't do it. You might regret it afterwards.

Overall, no, I don't think there's anything wrong with paying for sex.



UgShy said:


> You guys know that having sex isnt going to magically take away any problems right?


I agree with this, too. Having sex isn't going to change much. Sex doesn't change anything in a person except give them a new experience. If what you're worried about is telling people you're a virgin, how is it going to make it any better if you tell them you did it with a prostitute? You're going to be judged either way because not everyone is accepting of it/will find it weird.


----------



## Ironpain (Aug 8, 2010)

Why not just pay for an Escort? Like everyone else is saying this has to be your decision, just make sure you know what you are getting into, it's a personal choice between you and that person so go for it man, If your boner is a loner and you need to have a party go for it. Also be aware of course that if you go for the prostitution angle you might want to be very careful. You're safer legally going for the Escort.


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

UgShy said:


> You guys know that having sex isnt going to magically take away any problems right?


^ If anything I'd argue that it's going to make issues worse.

And to those who keep saying you pay for sex one way or another is wrong. You don't HAVE to spend money to get a girlfriend. Having to spend money definitely varies


----------



## Winds (Apr 17, 2011)

TragicDreamz said:


> Everybody pays for sex in some way but the way you plan on paying for it I wouldn't suggest.


That dude is hilarious, one of my favorite youtubers :lol

"You have to pay for it"


----------



## straightarrows (Jun 18, 2010)

a sin is a sin,,but u r young, u can get what u want for free!


----------



## Grimsey (Apr 21, 2012)

UgShy said:


> You guys know that having sex isnt going to magically take away any problems right?


Seconded. By all accounts there will be no emotional connection with an escort, and you'll probably find it a complete letdown.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

Ironpain said:


> Why not just pay for an Escort? Like everyone else is saying this has to be your decision, just make sure you know what you are getting into, it's a personal choice between you and that person so go for it man, If your boner is a loner and you need to have a party go for it. Also be aware of course that if you go for the prostitution angle you might want to be very careful. You're safer legally going for the Escort.


But I thought escorts mostly offer sex...I mean some offer the girlfriend experience or they just hang on your arm for the night..but I mean the big money is to offer sex. I think most offer it. So basically the same thing.


----------



## TragicDreamz (May 9, 2012)

EastWinds said:


> That dude is hilarious, one of my favorite youtubers :lol
> 
> "You have to pay for it"


OffTopic: How do you post videos/Gifs on the forum?

OnTopic: You heard about them robot prostitutes they're working on? just sayin..


----------



## CopadoMexicano (Aug 21, 2004)

I got kicked out of reality for not being a womanizer so I thought being sosusve would get me all the women


----------



## Winds (Apr 17, 2011)

TragicDreamz said:


> OffTopic: How do you post videos/Gifs on the forum?


with youtube links you just copy and paste everything after the v=

[YOUTUBE*.*]gwUX4cSwrRk[/YOUTUBE]

just remove the period and the video will show






With gifs and pictures just open the image in a new window and copy the image and paste it within the insert image tags on the forums



TragicDreamz said:


> OnTopic: You heard about them robot prostitutes they're working on? just sayin..


yeah I heard about that, robots are the future I guess lol


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

I don't see anything wrong with it as long as you can be pretty sure the woman is not a victim of trafficking or a pimp. If the woman is a native born American, appears to be at least 20, and is not hooking on the street then it's probably fine. I've read that the ones in Asian massage parlors are almost all trafficked in and only get a small percentage of what the customer pays.


----------



## lakecreek (Nov 2, 2011)

I will likely go to a escort since it would be much safer than some chick from the streets. At first I did want to have a girlfriend and then lose it, but I'm almost 26 years old and I'm not getting any younger, so I may well just pay and enjoy it that way. I use to care about my virginity but when you get to that point you just can less. Virginity and just a virginity, its nothing special or so sacred.

Let's face it I'm a Indian guy mixed with Latin, and most Indian guys are not good looking (including myself, picture can explain the truth) so my chances are very slim to find a actual person. I'm coming to realize, do I want to waste my whole life trying to look for a girlfriend? Dating women is hard, for me its worst because one I'm not good looking at all, and two, I'm a junior in college working part-time. And from what I read, women would not go for someone in my current status. So after thinking about it, I may will save up for escort services and visit them whenever I have cash to spare.

Someone mention online dating, that will be even worse, you will have to be at your best too competitive online.

Receiving most of your guys feedback on here, I feel a little more comfortable to pay off a escort for sexual services and if I have more cash I might go for the girlfriend experience as someone said. I think I will be nervous to do it with a complete stranger but at least I will get to experience what I have missed out on most of my life.


----------



## Blix (May 9, 2012)

UgShy said:


> You guys know that having sex isnt going to magically take away any problems right?


This.



Grimsey said:


> Seconded. By all accounts there will be no emotional connection with an escort, and you'll probably find it a complete letdown.


and this. The girl might make you feel like your the only guy with a d*ck in the world but they're really in it for the money. When she leaves it could just make you feel worse. But it's your decision.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

Your life, your decision. However, recognize the fact that sex will not cure anything or make you feel any better for more than about 15 minutes. Also, if you later tell people about it, their opinion of you will probably suffer.


----------



## lakecreek (Nov 2, 2011)

I just want to have sex and that's it. Nothing else. I don't want to try attempt to have a relationship with anyone, I'm not the type of guy girls would like, I'm too boring and quiet. Escorts will always be in my life. If I want to have my own kids, I'll just pay someone to have my kids.


----------



## LordScott (Apr 9, 2012)

I would, but not the skanks off the street


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

Yes, it is bad.


----------



## AmericanZero (Apr 17, 2012)

I'm starting to feel like a hooker is all I will ever have. There's just something about me that has turned off every girl I've ever tried to talk to and they never tell me what it is.

I never get very far before they push me away or write me off as worthless no matter what I do or how hard I try.

I say go for it.


----------



## tea111red (Nov 8, 2005)

If you do, it might be a good idea to keep it to yourself.


----------



## persona non grata (Jul 13, 2011)

I've never paid for sex, but I think the taboo is hypocritical. If society can accept people having sex for money on camera, it ought to be able to accept sex for money in private.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

On an individual level I don't believe there is anything wrong with a person soliciting their body. The body is used as a commodity in other outlets; the media, magazines, art, you could possibly even argue, more loosely; blood, sperm donation, non erotic massage. Slightly different maybe but people in certain businesses are very aware that sex sells. Morally, I can't see it being so different in fundamentals from these things.

I think it's because actual sex, taboo is attached to it, and humans are obsessed with, and often confused, guilty over sex. Perhaps I should be fair and state that's not necessarily applicable to asexuals. 

Societally however, I think there's an underlying problem which isn't addressed. I want to be clear that what I will write does not apply to women forced into prostitution or victims of human traffic. This may take some explaining but some background is neccessary to make my point. 

It's quite known and documented now that many formerly pimped prostitutes have taken to online soliciting. There are now thousands of escorts available online, these are either through firms which women pay a fee to for services, or independent escorts with their own websites. Of these women, a fair proportion are also students or independent women, there's also 'high class' escorts available in the UK, and the US too I'm sure who can make £1000 in a few hours. 

Undoubtedly, escorting (at least the type of escorting I am talking about) is more now about female choice and less about oppression. Which, of course is a good thing. It's gradually becoming more accepted and less taboo. It's legal to solicit in the UK.

These things, in my opinion aren't bad. I'm not morally opposed to them. The problem is consequential. Of these women, more are making an active choice to escort.

Some of the statements I've seen in video documentaries and forums are 'I'm a student, I'd be out getting laid anyway. I might as well get paid for it.' Another documentary I saw yesterday called 'happy hookers' was in ways glamorising it by talking about the financial benefits applied to middle class lifestyles and 'diary of a call girl' references.

We live in a disposable male society to start with. Many of the types of males using these services are the ones who can't get laid in the first place, loveshy, socially anxious, introverted, or rejected because of womens unrealistic expectations. Generally these males view the availability of escorts as a positive thing. 

The connection people aren't making though, is that many of these girls are capitalising directly from this result of feminism. It only widens the gap between women and the disposable male. Ultimately it makes 'Want sex? Have to pay for it' more standardised and it doesn't directly address the actual societal issue.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

low said:


> blah blah blah
> 
> The connection people aren't making though, is that many of these girls are capitalising directly from this result of feminism. It only widens the gap between women and the disposable male. Ultimately it makes *'Want sex? Have to pay for it'* more standardised and it doesn't directly address the actual societal issue.


No ****. That's why it's called prostitution. A lot of men who solicit prostitutes go for a myriad of reasons. It's not simply the shy guy who can't get the attention of a girl. It's guys with kinks, guys with physical disabilities, or guys who want the affair to be kept secret (Spitzer and the gang). The common prostitute goer is not your average Joe. Prostitution doesn't perpetuate the idea that men are disposable (there are male prostitutes) because they CHOOSE to pay for sex.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

Seems to me like men pay for sex no matter what. 

Prostitute = cash in hand. 

Dating/girlfriends = dinners, movies, shows, flowers, gifts, jewelry etc., etc. 

Marriage = buy the big house, car, pay the bills, gifts, jewelery, share your bank account, etc., etc. 

Guys only buy and do all this stuff for the attention and affection of women. 
If not for women and the hoops many men have to jump through to impress them, men wouldn't care about most of that stuff and would live in an apartment no bigger than a box. But because most women seem to need to be impressed, men lose their mind having to care about or try to acquire most if not all this stuff. 

So at the end of the story, guys always seem to pay for it anyway and it seems pros may be the cheapest no strings attached option. Unless you are the type of guy who can walk in to a club or bar and have the pooter wrap around your finger mutually like a boss to take home and play semi-permanent tombstone pile driver all night.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

falling down said:


> Seems to me like men pay for sex no matter what.
> 
> Prostitute = cash in hand.
> 
> ...


Yes yes, men always pay for everything and women never open their wallet. When was the last time you went on a date again?



> *Guys only buy and do all this stuff for the attention and affection of women.*
> If not for women and the hoops many men have to jump through to impress them, men wouldn't care about most of that stuff and would live in an apartment no bigger than a box. But because most women seem to need to be impressed, men lose their mind having to care about or try to acquire most if not all this stuff.


Yes, men are jumping through hoops and women are sitting there looking pretty, but of course, why bother argue that with you since you see all women as interchangeable.



> So at the end of the story, guys always seem to pay for it anyway and it seems pros may be the cheapest no strings attached option. Unless you are the type of guy who can walk in to a club or bar and have the pooter wrap around your finger mutually like a boss to take home and play semi-permanent tombstone pile driver all night.


This isn't "paying for sex" through dating. It's called living in a capitalist country where the only way to enjoy yourself is going out and spending money.

If you date someone it's because you're interested in the person. If you're look for a good f---, you could always go to a bar and take home one of the semi-drunk girls.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> Yes yes, men always pay for everything and women never open their wallet. When was the last time you went on a date again?
> 
> Yes, men are jumping through hoops and women are sitting there looking pretty, but of course, why bother argue that with you since you see all women as interchangeable.
> 
> ...


Oh relax feminist, I never meant it that way.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

low said:


> We live in a disposable male society to start with.


:wtf


----------



## MrGilligan (Apr 29, 2012)

If sex is something you think it special, you probably won't get the kind you want if you've got to pay for it. But if you just want to have sex just for the sake of sex and have extra money lying around, then go ahead and buy some. You're paying for a service... Nothing wrong with that - as long as you're both consenting adults.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

AllToAll said:


> No ****. That's why it's called prostitution. A lot of men who solicit prostitutes go for a myriad of reasons. It's not simply the shy guy who can't get the attention of a girl. It's guys with kinks, guys with physical disabilities, or guys who want the affair to be kept secret (Spitzer and the gang). The common prostitute goer is not your average Joe.


It's not simply the shy guy, regardless a fair proportion are the types I've wrote about.

Subjectively, kinks, physical disabilities or men having affairs could also be results of the disposable male, such as if a mans spouse refuses to have sex with him.



AllToAll said:


> Prostitution doesn't perpetuate the idea that men are disposable (there are male prostitutes) because they CHOOSE to pay for sex.


There are far less male prostitutes.

They choose to pay for sex - because unrealistic women, as a consequence of feminism expect men to be something they are not, and so they are rejected. They choose to pay for sex...so that they can actually get sex.

Watch some of the documentaries. Many of the women talk about it quite casually as a means of easy money. They are capitalising. Men can't do this or have to sleep with other men much of the time to earn.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

MrGilligan said:


> If sex is something you think it special, you probably won't get the kind you want if you've got to pay for it. But if you just want to have sex just for the sake of sex and have extra money lying around, then go ahead and buy some. You're paying for a service... Nothing wrong with that - as long as you're both consenting adults.


Yes he would be paying for a human flesh light to pump his penis. That's pretty much what that is when there is no caring or love involved. She probably won't kiss him and if she does she won't mean it. It's not like I have experience with pros or anything though.


----------



## MrGilligan (Apr 29, 2012)

falling down said:


> Yes he would be paying for a human flesh light to pump his penis. That's pretty much what that is when there is no caring or love involved. She probably won't kiss him and if she does she won't mean it. It's not like I have experience with pros or anything though.


Well, if that's the part of sex he likes, then he should go for it. I don't have sex, so I wouldn't know. People pay for massages, and that's practically the same thing... Someone rubbing around all over you and you think it feels good, but they don't love you or care about you. If you want to have something enough to pay for it, and someone else wants money enough to give you that thing in exchange, then it sounds like a perfect deal.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

You pretty much always pay for sex. Prostitution is just a more honest way to do it. Especially when the sex is your main objective. Why bother with all that other noise if all you want is an orgasm?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

low said:


> There are far less male prostitutes.
> 
> They choose to pay for sex - because unrealistic women, as a consequence of feminism expect men to be something they are not, and so they are rejected. They choose to pay for sex...so that they can actually get sex.
> 
> Watch some of the documentaries. Many of the women talk about it quite casually as a means of easy money. They are capitalising. Men can't do this or have to sleep with other men much of the time to earn.


Actually prostitution was much more common before 1970. Before feminism, men could only have sex if they got married or went to a prostitute. Pre-marital sex was much rarer. Much more men than now lost their virginity to a prostitute.

There are more female prostitutes because the majority of men are straight. And of course because men have higher sex drives than women and also like casual sex with a number of partners much more.

I don't really know what you are talking about with regard to women being unrealistic.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

BobtheSaint said:


> :wtf


Former providership role of milennia broken down in around a hundred years. 
Welfare state. 
Bias divorce courts, custodial rights.
Cultural expectance. Paying for dates, etc.
Cultural bias. Halo effect, extraversion bias, value bias: wage, income, social position.
Societal degredation and victimisation

+ intermale competition

Women can get by quite literally without men, and so they should be to. The problem is not that women can get by without men but some of the mercenary means they can apply to do so. Men are disposable.


----------



## lakecreek (Nov 2, 2011)

falling down said:


> Oh relax feminist, I never meant it that way.


I started rolling on this one. I have to agree with you on this one. I'm definitely planning to pay good sex with a escort. May find me a nice European woman who does that service.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

low said:


> Former providership role of milennia broken down in around a hundred years.
> Welfare state.
> Bias divorce courts, custodial rights.
> Cultural expectance. Paying for dates, etc.
> ...


People are disposable only if they allow themselves to be. I respect myself and I'm not backing down.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

komorikun said:


> Actually prostitution was much more common before 1970. Before feminism, men could only have sex if they got married or went to a prostitute. Pre-marital sex was much rarer. Much more men than now lost their virginity to a prostitute.


It may well have been more common. It's also diversified into porn stars and internet based escorts, who are for all intents and purposes ambiguously defined prostitutes. Many of these escorts will undoubtedly go under the radar too. Pre marital sex was rarer but it was also more taboo and so less documented I would assume. I don't necessarily doubt what you say though.

Regardless, there are a growing number of prostitutes actively choosing the lifestyle as a means of supporting a middle class lifestyle. This is capitalism. Not necessity or desperation. As such, combined with cultural acceptance of escorting; the types of men mentioned are parasitised further by the feministic regime which largely contributed to their lack of being accepted by women in the first place.



komorikun said:


> There are more female prostitutes because the majority of men are straight.


That doesn't matter. Men can't realistically sell sex to women. Even taking in to account that men have higher sex drives and the occasional gigalo you might read about in a magazine. Women have almost absolute monopoly on sex.



komorikun said:


> And of course because men have higher sex drives than women and also like casual sex with a number of partners much more.


It takes one straight man to have sex with one straight female. Men apparently do cheat more so even if it is 1:2 this is still only a small amount of men. Overall men and women are not having much more or less sex. On point, escorts are having sex with far more casual partners and women can get sex much easier than men.



komorikun said:


> I don't really know what you are talking about with regard to women being unrealistic.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

BobtheSaint said:


> People are disposable only if they allow themselves to be. I respect myself and I'm not backing down.


Aah right. You're bulletproof huh?

Big boys don't cry eh?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

greencarpet said:


> Right. This isn't even historically accurate. It was actually the temperance movement and the first wave of feminism in the 19th century that has made prostitution largely illegal. And yes, there were places that were tourist traps and their version of sin city/vegas. Brothels were legal and embraced by the government who used the licensing fees to run STD clinics. Oh the irony of feminism. Gain the right to vote; get thrown in prison if you try to get compensated for sex.
> 
> It's kind of disgusting that people trying to egg on the OP. Everybody is entitled for their own opinions. But your just reassuring somebody to do something drastic because he's in pain.
> Would you also reassure a man who is suicidal to go through with it, too?


First wave feminism and second wave feminism were quite different. I wasn't even discussing the legality of it. I was talking about how common seeing a prostitute was and is because Low was blaming feminism for men having to pay for sex. And how is seeing a prostitute similar to committing suicide?


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

falling down said:


> Oh relax feminist, I never meant it that way.


Please don't tell me what to do, but feel free to explain then what exactly you meant.



BobtheSaint said:


> :wtf


Interesting. That was my exact facial expression upon reading his comment.



low said:


> Former providership role of milennia broken down in around a hundred years.
> Welfare state.
> Bias divorce courts, custodial rights.
> Cultural expectance. Paying for dates, etc.
> ...


Women are independent, therefore, men are disposable? 
As for the rest, what's your point in throwing terms around? Societal degradation and victimization regarding whom?

You do realize that double standards affect both men and women, right?



low said:


> It's not simply the shy guy, regardless a fair proportion are the types I've wrote about.


What guy were you writing about exactly?



> Subjectively, kinks, physical disabilities or men having affairs could also be results of the disposable male, such as if a mans spouse refuses to have sex with him.


So basically a woman has to do anything her husband wants, otherwise, he's a disposable male? :lol



> There are far less male prostitutes.


But male prostitutes exist. Period.



> They choose to pay for sex - because unrealistic women, as a consequence of feminism expect men to be something they are not, and so they are rejected. They choose to pay for sex...so that they can actually get sex.


How is feminism asking men to be something they are not? If anything feminism is fighting against double standards and gender rules, which basically hope to collapse these institutionalized gender expectations/differences.

You also seem to forget that gender expectations existed way before feminism.

As for the latter part of your comment, yes, it's true. Some men can't get laid, but it's not due to your conclusions.

If Mark Anthony could get Dayanara and Jennifer Lopez to marry him, any guy in this world has a chance to get laid.



> Watch some of the documentaries. Many of the women talk about it quite casually as a means of easy money. They are capitalising. Men can't do this or have to sleep with other men much of the time to earn.


No ****. If men will pay for prostitutes, women will become prostitutes. I don't need to watch a documentary to reach that conclusion, but that has nothing to do with the idea that men are disposable.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> Please don't tell me what to do, but feel free to explain then what exactly you meant.


Simply that my post was not as black and white as you would like to think it is. 
I also didn't tell you what to do, I just said to relax because you're getting all geared up for nothing.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

falling down said:


> Simply that my post was not as black and white as you would like to think it is.
> I also didn't tell you what to do, I just said to relax because you're getting all geared up for nothing.


If anyone of us was making a black/white argument, it was you.

Really? Because that seemed like an imperative verb to me. :roll


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

There are male prostitutes for straight women not as common but they are there...just saying. The majority it seems like are the women for straight men sooo... Why can't he just make his own choice people...he says he doesn't care about the emotional connection he just wants sex...so if he can't get a random girl from a bar or whatever might as well go to a professional. If he has already made up his mind then so be it.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

meganmila said:


> *There are male prostitutes for straight women not as common but they are there.*..just saying. The majority it seems like are the women for straight men sooo... Why can't he just make his own choice people...he says he doesn't care about the emotional connection he just wants sex...so if he can't get a random girl from a bar or whatever might as well go to a professional. If he has already made up his mind then so be it.


And gay men. :yes

I completely agree, though. If he doesn't care about the "emotional connection," go for it. Plus, I read a book on Johns and the regulars speak very highly of their usual girl. Sometimes these men actually develop friendship with these women (not outside, though) and speak about personal things during "sessions"... Who knows? Maybe you'll get a really sensible woman to pop your cherry.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> And gay men. :yes
> 
> I completely agree, though. If he doesn't care about the "emotional connection," go for it. Plus, I read a book on Johns and the regulars speak very highly of their usual girl. Sometimes these men actually develop friendship with these women (not outside, though) and speak about personal things during "sessions"... Who knows? Maybe you'll get a really sensible woman to pop your cherry.


Yea..that's also true.

Yea you can also talk to this girl like a human being too...they will also allow that. I have read some guys pay for one just to talk to them or do some type of fetish or kink that doesn't really involve sex.


----------



## TheTruthIsOutThere (Apr 10, 2012)

Haha why would it be bad? Go for it. Just make sure she's clean


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> If anyone of us was making a black/white argument, it was you.
> 
> Really? Because that seemed like an imperative verb to me. :roll


No I'm not, obviously many women work for their own money these days and don't need men to provide, but there's still very much an old school mentality amongst many men that is predominant in our society. You can pretend like there isn't if you'd like, but you know deep down that it's still very much true. You may now continue your anger ranting.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

falling down said:


> No I'm not, obviously many women work for their own money these days and don't need men to provide, but there's still very much an old school mentality amongst many men that is predominant in our society. You can pretend like there isn't if you'd like, but you know deep down that it's still very much true. You may now continue your anger ranting.


I'm not arguing that. I'm well aware of gender roles. Your oversimplifications and generalizations, however, I don't agree with (i.e. rawr rawr, women have it so easy because men have to pay for everything!).

And of course I can keep on "ranting," but thanks for letting me know I have your blessing.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> I'm not arguing that. I'm well aware of gender roles. Your oversimplifications and generalizations, however, I don't agree with (i.e. rawr rawr, women have it so easy because men have to pay for everything!).
> 
> And of course I can keep on "ranting," but thanks for letting me know I have your blessing.


Obviously these days there are men and women who flip flop back and forth paying for things in relationships, on dates and in marriage. But the point I am trying to make is that most men still feel and in most cases do the traditional thing of insisting to pay for everything or buy super huge homes, fancy cars and put rings on fingers to impress not just women but everyone else. In which case a guy does pay for it no matter what but I guess in a way we all pay for it with many different resources whether material or emotional. Maybe it doesn't happen with you or you don't let it happen or you have sex freely with anyone or don't have sex at all, I don't know. I don't really understand what your angst is about other than to defend a feminist agenda because it's indoctrinated in you.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

falling down said:


> Seems to me like men pay for sex no matter what.
> 
> Prostitute = cash in hand.
> 
> ...





falling down said:


> *Obviously these days there are men and women who flip flop back and forth paying for things in relationships, *on dates and in marriage. But the point I am trying to make is that most men still feel and in most cases do the traditional thing of insisting to pay for everything or buy super huge homes, fancy cars and put rings on fingers to impress not just women but everyone else. In which case a guy does pay for it no matter what but I guess in a way we all pay for it with many different resources whether material or emotional. Maybe it doesn't happen with you or you don't let it happen or you have sex freely with anyone or don't have sex at all, I don't know. I don't really understand what your angst is about other than to defend a feminist agenda because it's indoctrinated in you.


Why is it that if I respond using sarcasm you always want to state that I'm angry? How is that helping your point?

Anyways, had you originally written this instead of "women don't pay for nothin'. Men do everything. Women are like 10 year-olds who need to be impressed and excited all the time," I would've been coolio.

And I completely agree with that imagine; if "you" is falling down and "me" is AllToAll.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

UgShy said:


> You guys know that having sex isnt going to magically take away any problems right?


Based upon the many posts of this type over the years, seems not everyone is totally clear on that.

If simply having sex cured SA, we could quickly eradicate this plague.


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

low said:


> Aah right. You're bulletproof huh?
> 
> Big boys don't cry eh?


Yessir. 8)


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I would never do it, would rather die a virgin. But do whatever you feel is right.


----------



## VC132 (Sep 1, 2010)

IWantToDie said:


> Haha why would it be bad? Go for it. Just make sure she's clean


lol


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

AllToAll said:


> Interesting. That was my exact facial expression upon reading his comment


Read the reply to that emoticon. That answers your next question.

It isn't the independence. It is the emasculating system which goes past independance and into the realm of subjugation. It reaches from popular culture to institution and law.

The traditional male role has been broken down and society hasn't accordingly filled the gap. Where it has, it's often built around appeasing the opposite sex. That's not fairness. We live in a matriarchal society.








AllToAll said:


> As for the rest, what's your point in throwing terms around? Societal degradation and victimization regarding whom?


Understand the terms and the context in which they are written and you will understand the point. Try a dictionary. Victimisation of men, under a guise of false victimisation of women. The last twatbag in the video is a perfect example.



AllToAll said:


> You do realize that double standards affect both men and women, right


Yes. Do you? Why don't you give me an example where men are victimised under female prositution so that we can relate a little?



AllToAll said:


> What guy were you writing about exactly





low said:


> We live in a disposable male society to start with. Many of the types of males using these services are the ones who can't get laid in the first place, loveshy, socially anxious, introverted, or rejected because of womens unrealistic expectations.





AllToAll said:


> So basically a woman has to do anything her husband wants, otherwise, he's a disposable male? :lol


No. Just what was stated.



AllToAll said:


> But male prostitutes exist. Period.


LOL. But the vast majority of prostitutes are female and men can't realistically sell sex to women. Period. You should be loving this if feminism is about equal opportunity and gender rules. I want the same rites and opportunity so that women can have the privilege of paying a fee for me to make love to them.



AllToAll said:


> How is feminism asking men to be something they are not? If anything feminism is fighting against double standards and gender rules, which basically hope to collapse these institutionalized gender expectations/differences.


Genuinely that would take too long to answer and a whole load of arguments. You can define feminism as being about equal rights but in practice it is a hypocritical movement, which transcends bringing about rights for women subjugates some of the rights of men in the process, and has led to a matriarchal society designed to suite women at the expense of men.



AllToAll said:


> You also seem to forget that gender expectations existed way before feminism.


 I assure you that gender role change is well on my mind, as it was when I wrote about the traditional role of men which lasted for millennia being changed over a relatively short course of history. It's on my mind when I see what some women can get away with now in how they treat men, and the double standards of equality whilst simultaneously expecting white knights and cliché expectations they now place on them.

Or are you spinning some women were treated badly in the past, I want you to be apologetic spiel?



AllToAll said:


> As for the latter part of your comment, yes, it's true. Some men can't get laid, but it's not due to your conclusions.


 My last post: http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...bout-modern-feminism-is-it-174175/index7.html

Blatantly, there is a cultural bias which is grounded by multiple scientific study. There is a culturally idealised white knight which far exceeds the realistic expectations of many women and as such, the realistic chances of many men.

At the least it's quite logical to assume there is a gap between idealised men (remember scientific grounding: idealised based on their traits in the data) and those who fail to meet such requirements.

So the men least likely to cheat statistically (that's in the data too) and the types I've mentioned are the ones having to fork out for prostitutes. Whilst the men most likely to cheat (extraverts - also in the data) are the ones seeing more women, of course the distinction isn't made there. All men are demonised.



AllToAll said:


> No ****. If men will pay for prostitutes, women will become prostitutes. I don't need to watch a documentary to reach that conclusion, but that has nothing to do with the idea that men are disposable.


 What you don't seem to get though is that women are capitalising under the system which rejected many of these men in the first place in which there's nothing majorly wrong with them in the first place much of the time.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

low said:


> Read the reply to that emoticon. That answers your next question.


I replied to that.



> It isn't the independence. It is the emasculating system which goes past independance and into the realm of subjugation. It reaches from popular culture to institution and law.


How does independence "cross the line" into subjugation?



> The traditional male role has been broken down and society hasn't accordingly filled the gap. Where it has, it's often built around appeasing the opposite sex. That's not fairness. *We live in a matriarchal society.*


:lol Suure. That's why we live under male power. If that were true, women would have already been presidents, more women would make up the senate/house of reps, and there would be more female CEOs. There is nothing matriarchal about this society.

It's interesting that you're against the idea of disposable male, yet you're for the original traditional male rolls. I'm going for the "women and children first" reference, which is what people go for when looking for evidence. Yet that idea was institutionalized from the believe that women are weak, docile, and need help from men. That completely contradicts the belief that men are disposable.



> Understand the terms and the context in which they are written and you will understand the point. Try a dictionary. Victimisation of men, under a guise of false victimisation of women. The last twatbag in the video is a perfect example.


I know what the words mean, but throwing them around doesn't mean anything since they could be used for both men and women. Get that?

Again, the traditional male role, which you're crying over its decline, is what doesn't allow victimization of men. In that handbook men would be seen as a bunch of whimps. You got raped? Don't cry about it. You're being emotionally abused by your girlfriend? Cry to your mother. Are you sure that's the type of society you want to live in?



> Yes. Do you? Why don't you give me an example where men are victimised under female prositution so that we can relate a little?


I never said men were victimized in prostitution. I said double standards harm men and women.



> No. Just what was stated.


Oh, god, of course that's not the typical guy that goes to a prostitute. You simply go there to try and prove a point (which is contradictory in and of itself).



> LOL. But the vast majority of prostitutes are female and men can't realistically sell sex to women. Period! You should be loving this if feminism is about equal opportunity and gender rules. I want the same rites and opportunity so that women can have the privilege of paying a fee for me to make love to them for a fee.


Yes they can, otherwise, they wouldn't exist. Not to mention gay men also solicit male prostitutes.
I'm completely against gender rules, as opposed to you and your obsession with "emasculation."



> Genuinely that would take too long to answer and a whole load of arguments. You can define feminism as being about equal rights but in practice it is a hypocritical movement, which transcends bringing about rights for women subjugates some of the rights of men in the process, and has led to a matriarchal society designed to suite women at the expense of men.


What rights suit women but not men? Equal pay? Reproductive health rights? No gender discrimination? 
Don't just throw your theories of "emasculation." What laws prefer women over men?



> I assure you that gender role change is well on my mind, as it was when I wrote about the traditional role of men which lasted for millennia being changed over a relatively short course of history. It's on my mind when I see what some women can get away with now in how they treat men, and the double standards of equality whilst simultaneously expecting white knights and cliché expectations they now place on them.


Women can get away with things and so can men. What's your point? 
I don't know if you've come across a variety of women in your lifetime, but during the 21st century, few women expect a "white knight." Maybe in medieval times, but not anymore. :lol



> Or are you spinning some women were treated badly in the past, I want you to be apologetic spiel?


No. Women were treated awesomely. We were sold like kettle into marriage. We couldn't manage our finances. We couldn't vote. Anything we owned or invented had to be under our husband's name... No, no, the past was dandy towards women.



> My last post: http://www.socialanxietysupport.com...bout-modern-feminism-is-it-174175/index7.html
> 
> Blatantly, there is a cultural bias which is grounded by multiple scientific study. There is a culturally idealised white knight which far exceeds the realistic expectations of many women and as such, the realistic chances of many men.
> 
> At the least it's quite logical to assume there is a gap between idealised men (remember scientific grounding: idealised based on their traits in the data) and those who fail to meet such requirements.


Simply because more women get responses on dating sites, doesn't mean there's a gap between the idealized male or woman. Those conclusions you're making on your own.



> So the men least likely to cheat statistically (that's in the data too) and the types I've mentioned are the ones having to fork out for prostitutes.


There's no proof of that, those are simply the things you want to believe.



> What you don't seem to get though is that women are capitalising under the system which rejected many of these men in the first place in which there's nothing majorly wrong with them in the first place.


Perhaps they are, but there's nothing wrong with that.:
"A 2001 study by Martin A. Monto, published in the Journal of Sex Research, indicates that 'the desire for fellatio is an important reason clients seek female prostitutes.' Monto's study gathered questionnaires from men arrested while trying to hire hookers; according to the perps, fellatio was the most common practice they "had ever experienced" with a prostitute--a whopping 81% had received a blowjob as compared to 55% who had had sex."

Men who seek prostitutes go because they can't get something they want sexually/are afraid to ask from other women they're either dating/married to/Gf-BF. Women aren't denying men anything except what they don't want to do. There's NOTHING wrong with that. Women don't owe men anything in a relationship except respect.

EDIT: By the way. I just saw the first minute of that video and I have to say, you outdid yourself with finding the most homophobic and misogynist video you could online. Pad yourself on the back for that one. Classy.


----------



## Millais (Mar 15, 2012)

lakecreek said:


> I'm about to turn 26 years old in July and never had sex before and its sort of bothering me that I have not. One night I was getting some pizza and I saw this prostitute on the corner and gave me a idea that I should just pay for it like some men do. Of course, I wouldn't touch the ones from the street but rather hire a good one that will least cost $ 200.00 to $ 400.00 an hour. Some people think the thought of paying for it is horrible, at first I thought so too, but now entering my late 20's I don't care much. I also realize the risk of diseases but that can happen with anyone that is not in the escort business, and I have heard they care much about their health. Sometime I wonder if that would make me a bad person because I'm paying for such a service.


One only hopes you don't have a daughter some day.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Only if you want a STD on the side.


----------



## Nevermind0 (Jul 31, 2011)

I wouldn't do that but if some person payed for sex i wouldn't say that makes them a "bad person"


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

I would be more worried for the girls getting STDs cause I bet their costumers don't get tested...unlike some escorts that do! And some even use protection! "gasp" for everything. So yes if she was likely to get one it would be from the gross guys..


----------



## shadowmask (Jun 22, 2009)

No, it isn't. Prostitution being so taboo (at least in the US) is just bizarre. I have yet to hear anyone make a reasonable argument against it. Honestly, I'm surprised to not hear more women standing up in favor of legalizing prostitution. Shouldn't a woman be able to do what she wishes with her own body? Well, actually she can, in regards to sex. Anybody can go out and willingly sleep with a hundred, a thousand, however many people he or she wants and everything is hunky dory. But the minute money changes hands for it, look out! Better put their asses underneath the jail! It's so stupid.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

shadowmask said:


> No, it isn't. Prostitution being so taboo (at least in the US) is just bizarre. I have yet to hear anyone make a reasonable argument against it. Honestly, I'm surprised to not hear more women standing up in favor of legalizing prostitution. Shouldn't a woman be able to do what she wishes with her own body? Well, actually she can, in regards to sex. Anybody can go out and willingly sleep with a hundred, a thousand, however many people he or she wants and everything is hunky dory. But the minute money changes hands for it, look out! Better put their asses underneath the jail! It's so stupid.


No I totally agree. So there's one woman. I mean we all have random one night stands or just casual sex but that's not really looked down upon.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

meganmila said:


> I would be more worried for the girls getting STDs cause I bet their costumers don't get tested...unlike some escorts that do! And some even use protection! "gasp" for everything. So yes if she was likely to get one it would be from the gross guys..


Wait a minute, the woman selling a*s isn't gross but the guy buying it is?

Awesome logic. :roll


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

falling down said:


> Wait a minute, the woman selling a*s isn't gross but the guy buying it is?
> 
> Awesome logic. :roll


Ok so they are both gross disgusting people :roll How dare they have consensual adult sex even if it is with money involved. If they are doing it behind closed doors in a safe way who cares what they do. It's just funny how everyone thinks the girls are disgusting people.


----------



## lakecreek (Nov 2, 2011)

Millais said:


> One only hopes you don't have a daughter some day.


What this has to do with me having a child but you said daughter? It seems like your saying I would have sex with my own daughter. I know sex is natural and I got cravings but two things I would never do is have sex with my own related blood and never anyone below the age of 20. I know 18 and 19 are legal. Gee, I hope I never get a escort pregnant, but then how would she know it would be me when she has sex with many other men. Especially if I see only once she may not even remember my name.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

meganmila said:


> Ok so they are both gross disgusting people :roll How dare they have consensual adult sex even if it is with money involved. If they are doing it behind closed doors in a safe way who cares what they do. It's just funny how everyone thinks the girls are disgusting people.


:wtf

I don't think either of them are gross but if you are going to call 1 gross then by default so to is the other. :stu

People have their own reasons for the **** they do.


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

lakecreek said:


> What this has to do with me having a child but you said daughter? It seems like your saying I would have sex with my own daughter. I know sex is natural and I got cravings but two things I would never do is have sex with my own related blood and never anyone below the age of 20. I know 18 and 19 are legal. Gee, I hope I never get a escort pregnant, but then how would she know it would be me when she has sex with many other men. Especially if I see only once she may not even remember my name.


I think that poster meant that if you're OK with the idea of you giving some random woman money in exchange for sex, you should later be OK with the idea of some random man giving your daughter money in exchange for sex.

If the latter bothers you, you should ask yourself why.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

falling down said:


> :wtf
> 
> I don't think either of them are gross but if you are going to call 1 gross then by default so to is the other. :stu
> 
> People have their own reasons for the **** they do.


I was saying that cause everyone here assume every escort out there has STDs/AIDS whatever....so I was just defending them. Honestly I don't think any of them are gross but I was saying gross earlier out of frustration so sorry abut that..I was just trying to defend them.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

meganmila said:


> I was saying that cause everyone here assume every escort out there has STDs/AIDS whatever....so I was just defending them. Honestly I don't think any of them are gross but I was saying gross earlier out of frustration so sorry abut that..I was just trying to defend them.


Toothless crack wh*res, now they might be gross.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

falling down said:


> Toothless crack wh*res, now they might be gross.


Well then obviously don't mess with them. I would also be wary of street walkers too.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

meganmila said:


> Well then obviously don't mess with them. I would also be wary of street walkers too.


:lol Trust me, I have no plans for either or.


----------



## intheshadows (Apr 5, 2011)

I did and I regret it. :sigh


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

intheshadows said:


> I did and I regret it. :sigh












I would love to hear more of this story.


----------



## Robert Paulson (Apr 11, 2012)

Well pre-marital sex is a sin in the Bible so I say no. I mean you have to weigh the pros vs the cons. The pro is that you lose your virginity. The con is that you have to pay for it, there is a chance of an STD, and you will spend an eternity burning in heck (I know mods are strict against profanity). I will pray for you.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

It won't make you happy. It will just be 30 seconds of fun followed by years of shame.

I was tricked into going to a brothel when I was in Spain, but I made an excuse to get out of there before anything happened...


----------



## Robert Paulson (Apr 11, 2012)

arnie said:


> It won't make you happy. It will just be 30 seconds of fun followed by years of shame.
> 
> I was tricked into going to a brothel when I was in Spain, but I made an excuse to get out of there before anything happened...


If you didn't even use the services offered in the brothel, how can you know that "It won't make you happy. It will just be 30 seconds of fun followed by years of shame."???


----------



## mike285 (Aug 21, 2010)

AllToAll said:


> And gay men. :yes
> 
> I completely agree, though. If he doesn't care about the "emotional connection," go for it. Plus, I read a book on Johns and the regulars speak very highly of their usual girl. Sometimes these men actually develop friendship with these women (not outside, though) and speak about personal things during "sessions"... Who knows? Maybe you'll get a really sensible woman to pop your cherry.


I don't have any first hand experience, but I've done some reading about it myself, and there are a lot of false stereotypes, not only about escorts but the guys that see them.

OP, if you're going to see an escort, see a higher end one. Do your research on her and check out her reviews, so you know what to expect when meeting her and that she isn't a cop. I don't have anything against prostitution, as long they are of age and nobody is forced into doing it. Have fun and be safe.


----------



## lakecreek (Nov 2, 2011)

rednosereindeer said:


> I think that poster meant that if you're OK with the idea of you giving some random woman money in exchange for sex, you should later be OK with the idea of some random man giving your daughter money in exchange for sex.
> 
> If the latter bothers you, you should ask yourself why.


If I had a daughter and if she doing prostitution, sure it would bother me. But I'm only want to visit a escort because its the only option I have and the only opportunity for me to experience sex. Women are just no interested in me, maybe its because I'm boring, not attractive enough, there are too many possibilities and I'm not going to waste my life just trying to find someone. Escorts are good outlet for me in this position I'm currently in. Going to be 26 years old, still never been on date, well I must be no good. However, forking out a few hundred dollars will get me somewhere than otherwise.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

AllToAll said:


> I replied to that.


Why ask a question if you already know the answer then?



AllToAll said:


> How does independence "cross the line" into subjugation?


I would call it growing narcissism, aggression and exaggerated entitlement influenced by feminist distortions among an ever growing number of nasty young women. Coupled with direct and subtle (often not even consciously aware) hatred of, unrealistic expectations and judgements, with misrepresentations of men.



AllToAll said:


> :lol Suure. That's why we live under male power. If that were true, women would have already been presidents, more women would make up the senate/house of reps, and there would be more female CEOs. There is nothing matriarchal about this society.


We've had a female prime minister, the Queen is obviously a woman, most daytime chat show hosts we are exposed to are women. Clearly there's a strong female presence in the majority of culture we are exposed to.

Women attain higher education than men, on more than one occasion I've seen a 60% of degrees attained are by women figure used, this doesn't point to a formal political educational opportunity discrimination.

Perhaps, women in politics - and in work in general aren't as, or willing to work as hard as men. Oops! I mean: _don't pursue or refine their political careers as much as men? _







...and indeed there are10 men for every 2 women pursuing positions in politics. Which, based off this http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/elective.pdf would be about a 3% under-representation. Hardly catastrophic.



AllToAll said:


> It's interesting that you're against the idea of disposable male, *yet you're for the original traditional male rolls.* I'm going for the "women and children first" reference, which is what people go for when looking for evidence. Yet that idea was institutionalized from the believe that women are weak, docile, and need help from men. That completely contradicts the belief that men are disposable.


That's your misrepresentation. I forgive you, but I'm glad you made it because it's kind of a big part of the point. Like many, you get so caught up in vehemently defending feminism and seem unwilling to accept that consequentially there have been adverse effects for the male population.

I wrote _"The traditional male role has been broken down and society __hasn't accordingly filled the gap__. __Where it has, it's often built around appeasing the opposite sex. That's not fairness.__ We live in a matriarchal society."_

There's a key difference there.

I believe feminism is directly harmful and...a load of other things I've stated. I also believe as a consequence of feminism, there have been not necessarily directly intended (or of malicious intent) effects on the well-being of men. When you put yourself in the position of automatically defending it in such zealous, dismissive fashion, and don't even entertain the notion you aren't really being...well...a decent human being and you just show your underlying man-hate fuels your agenda. Rather the hypocritical ideals of 'equal right' you claim to be so piously defendant of. It's extremely arrogant and insulting.



AllToAll said:


> I know what the words mean, but throwing them around doesn't mean anything since they could be used for both men and women. Get that?


Context.

And no, I don't get that. That's frankly silly, because they can be used by both does not lessen their value anymore when talking about specific issues.



AllToAll said:


> Again, the traditional male role, which you're crying over its decline, is what doesn't allow victimization of men. In that handbook men would be seen as a bunch of whimps. You got raped? Don't cry about it. You're being emotionally abused by your girlfriend? Cry to your mother. Are you sure that's the type of society you want to live in?


Crying over? I see. Being a _man-baby_ am I?

Some good things have came out of feminism for both sexes. You need to change your thinking though. That doesn't take away the subjugation and exploitation also brought by it. Emotional girlfriend abuse happens more now because of feminism because women are more controlling and narcissistic than ever.



AllToAll said:


> I never said men were victimized in prostitution. I said double standards harm men and women.


 I know you didn't. You asked if I was aware of double standards, and I got a 'mightier than though' vibe from you. I just wanted you to give me an example of how men are victimised regarding prostitution.



AllToAll said:


> Oh, god, of course that's not the typical guy that goes to a prostitute. You simply go there to try and prove a point (which is contradictory in and of itself.


 I had to go there? Well I am argueing certain points and will reiterate from time, to be fair you went here:



AllToAll said:


> So basically a woman has to do anything her husband wants, otherwise, he's a disposable male? :lol


 So, read properly and misquote less before you get annoyed at people in the first place.



AllToAll said:


> What rights suit women but not men?


 What is wrong with you? I've previously gave you a list of inequalities.

Furthermore, what's the point really? You've proved your sophism by denying multiple scientific studies which all show similar, unifying - hard not to interpret clearly - female biases. This is called denialism or not being reasonable.

Then make some crappy comment about it being my opinion, like a personal bias. When I've specifically looked through and understood all of the data and been informed by that.

YET you're quick to use one singular BJ study which only really says "men like getting blow jobs at escorts" and claim it as "men cheat with escorts because their partners won't give them blowjobs".



AllToAll said:


> Women can get away with things and so can men. *What's your point?*





AllToAll said:


> You also seem to forget that gender expectations existed way before feminism.


 That I haven't.



AllToAll said:


> No. Women were treated awesomely. We were sold like kettle into marriage. We couldn't manage our finances. We couldn't vote. Anything we owned or invented had to be under our husband's name... No, no, the past was dandy towards women.





AllToAll said:


> Or are you spinning some women were treated badly in the past, I want you to be apologetic spiel?


So that *WAS* your original point then.



AllToAll said:


> Simply because more women get responses on dating sites, doesn't mean there's a gap between the idealized male or woman. *Those conclusions you're making on your own. *
> 
> There's *no proof of that*, those are *simply the things you want to believe.*


 You just can't interpret data or use straight up denialism. The data shows a blatant link of exactly what you deny, and it shows it from several sources. Emotional state, personal bias, or fantastical interpretation doesn't come in to it. The data is very straight forward. Honestly I don't even think you've looked at it.



AllToAll said:


> Perhaps they are, but there's nothing wrong with that.:
> "A 2001 study by Martin A. Monto, published in the Journal of Sex Research, indicates that 'the desire for fellatio is an important reason clients seek female prostitutes.' Monto's study gathered questionnaires from men arrested while trying to hire hookers; according to the perps, fellatio was the most common practice they "had ever experienced" with a prostitute--a whopping 81% had received a blowjob as compared to 55% who had had sex."
> 
> Men who seek prostitutes go because they can't get something they want sexually/are afraid to ask from other women they're either dating/married to/Gf-BF. Women aren't denying men anything except what they don't want to do. There's NOTHING wrong with that. Women don't owe men anything in a relationship except respect.


If you buy an Ice-cream cone and the guy selling it says 'Do you want free 'monster blood' and 'hundreds and thousands' on there? Assuming you love monster blood and hundreds and thousands you're going to say 'Hell yeah!' If you buy 3rd class travel and you're offered 1st class when you get there at no extra rate you aren't going to refuse. Most escorts work at a basic rate for time spent, which covers the basics. Certain kinks dependable on other stuff. Guess what? Most charge less for blow job only appointments... And blow jobs feel damn good.



AllToAll said:


> EDIT: By the way. I just saw the first minute of that video and I have to say, you outdid yourself with finding the most homophobic and misogynist video you could online. Pad yourself on the back for that one. Classy.


 That's ironic considering it highlighted a load of hypocritical, sadist *****es treating men like crap. What was homophobic about it?


----------



## lakecreek (Nov 2, 2011)

I would like to hire a escort not only for sex but maybe a way I can vent out questions why I have such a hard time in dating. Using a escort once or twice is not bad but going on and on forever, can be a bad. Who knows I maybe that guy who will use their service all the time, but maybe if I do this at least once maybe I can feel comfortable to show my interest sexually to a woman. As I right now I just want to enjoy sex, feeling my hands over a woman body and after such a experience I can feel more relaxed. Its hard to talk to women when S.E.X is on your mind. Just being honest here. If I had it before I wouldn't be in this mode.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> Why is it that if I respond using sarcasm you always want to state that I'm angry? How is that helping your point?
> 
> Anyways, had you originally written this instead of "women don't pay for nothin'. Men do everything. Women are like 10 year-olds who need to be impressed and excited all the time," I would've been coolio.
> 
> And I completely agree with that imagine; if "you" is falling down and "me" is AllToAll.


Or you could have just not read into my post more than there actually was and assume that I was a misogynist POS? Just a suggestion. :stu

Your sarcasm comes off as misdirected anger and bitterness to me. And I never once said this "Women don't pay for nothin. Men do everything." You interpreted that on your own.


----------



## Just Lurking (Feb 8, 2007)

*** Thread Lock Watch ***

We've gotten several reports about this one. There have been personal attacks in here; people going at each other's throats.

This thread is going to be more scrutinized from here on out, and infractions may be handed out for further problems.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

Yea this has turned into people arguing meh.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

low said:


> Why ask a question if you already know the answer then?


To which I replied that throwing terms around doesn't mean anything.



> I would call it growing narcissism, aggression and exaggerated entitlement influenced by feminist distortions among an ever growing number of nasty young women. Coupled with direct and subtle (often not even consciously aware) hatred of, unrealistic expectations and judgements, with misrepresentations of men.


Independence= narcissism. Got cha. That makes complete sense. Women who are independent are narcissists. And don't even get me started on those lesbians and their word without men. Rawr.



> We've had a female prime minister, the Queen is obviously a woman, most daytime chat show hosts we are exposed to are women. Clearly there's a strong female presence in the majority of culture we are exposed to.


Wow, and in China boys are preferred over girls! Yay, girls are killed! Women are getting raped by the dozen in the Democratic Republic of Congo! We've never had a female president in the US the "most progressive country." You want to omit it, but it won't work. We live in a patriarchy. You have no evidence against that.



> Women attain higher education than men, on more than one occasion I've seen a 60% of degrees attained are by women figure used, this doesn't point to a formal political educational opportunity discrimination.


There's more women than men too. Besides, women began getting higher ed in the 50s, so this point doesn't add to your "disposable male" theory.



> Perhaps, women in politics - and in work in general aren't as, or willing to work as hard as men. Oops! I mean: _don't pursue or refine their political careers as much as men? _


Then wouldn't women be the disposable ones and not men? Your biting yourself in the ***, bud.



> ...and indeed there are10 men for every 2 women pursuing positions in politics. Which, based off this http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/elective.pdf would be about a 3% under-representation. Hardly catastrophic.


Actually, considering the democratic government should represent society, yes, that is a big disparity.



> That's your misrepresentation. I forgive you, but I'm glad you made it because it's kind of a big part of the point. Like many, you get so caught up in vehemently defending feminism and seem unwilling to accept that consequentially there have been adverse effects for the male population.
> 
> I wrote _"The traditional male role has been broken down and society __hasn't accordingly filled the gap__. __Where it has, it's often built around appeasing the opposite sex. That's not fairness.__ We live in a matriarchal society."_
> 
> ...


I'm going to leave this really simple for ya: It's true that there have been changes, but positive ones. And feminism has been working for the improvement of women's standing in society because, I don't know if you're denying this to yourself, but historically women have been second class citizens. You know, not having the right to vote and all that jazz.



> Context.
> 
> And no, I don't get that. That's frankly silly, because they can be used by both does not lessen their value anymore when talking about specific issues.


Okay, then go ahead and give specific reasons as to how they affect men and I'll be happy to explain it to you. 



> Crying over? I see. Being a _man-baby_ am I?
> 
> Some good things have came out of feminism for both sexes. You need to change your thinking though. That doesn't take away the subjugation and exploitation also brought by it. Emotional girlfriend abuse happens more now because of feminism because women are more controlling and narcissistic than ever.


Oh poor thing you. My previous post was sarcastic. :roll



> I know you didn't. You asked if I was aware of double standards, and I got a 'mightier than though' vibe from you. I just wanted you to give me *an example of how men are victimised regarding prostitution.*


You actually never got to that, or I definitely don't remember reading that. Actually, I know how women are victimized ("oh the poor thing was probably abused as a child" when it'd not necessarily true), but I have no idea what you mean in regards to men.



> I had to go there? Well I am argueing certain points and will reiterate from time, to be fair you went here:
> 
> So, read properly and misquote less before you get annoyed at people in the first place.
> 
> What is wrong with you? I've previously gave you a list of inequalities.


Yes, genius. And they don't make **** sense. You're pulling them out of your *** to create a larger social problem (i.e. disposable male) that doesn't truly exist!



> Furthermore, what's the point really? You've proved your sophism by denying multiple scientific studies which all show similar, unifying - hard not to interpret clearly - female biases. This is called denialism or not being reasonable.


No, your statistics aren't proof of your conclusions. They're just numbers you're throwing around irrelevantly.

Then make some crappy comment about it being my opinion, like a personal bias. When I've specifically looked through and understood all of the data and been informed by that.

YET you're quick to use one singular BJ study which only really says "men like getting blow jobs at escorts" and claim it as "men cheat with escorts because their partners won't give them blowjobs". [/QUOTE]
No, your statistics aren't proof of your conclusions. They're just numbers you're throwing around irrelevantly. 
The fact that women generally get more dates on dating sites doesn't proof whatever disposable male theory you want to get across. Mine get to the point. Men go to prostitutes because they get something from them they don't get from their SO. There's nothing wrong with women not wanting to do everything their bfs want sexually.



> That I haven't.


Check again because it breaks your disposable male theory.



> So that *WAS* your original point then.


So happy you finally got it. You see, arguing against the idiotic idea of the disposable male. Eureka!



> You just can't interpret data or use straight up denialism. The data shows a blatant link of exactly what you deny, and it shows it from several sources. Emotional state, personal bias, or fantastical interpretation doesn't come in to it. The data is very straight forward. Honestly I don't even think you've looked at it.


It only shows more women get dates than men! That's it! You're doing the rest. You're adding your irrelevant ideas to it.



> If you buy an Ice-cream cone and the guy selling it says 'Do you want free 'monster blood' and 'hundreds and thousands' on there? Assuming you love monster blood and hundreds and thousands you're going to say 'Hell yeah!' If you buy 3rd class travel and you're offered 1st class when you get there at no extra rate you aren't going to refuse. Most escorts work at a basic rate for time spent, which covers the basics. Certain kinks dependable on other stuff. Guess what? Most charge less for blow job only appointments... And blow jobs feel damn good.


People buy things they like and want. Your point? None. This still doesn't add to your argument on the disposable male.



> That's ironic considering it highlighted a load of hypocritical, sadist *****es treating men like crap. What was homophobic about it?


I've only cited one thing and it was from a book written by a man. 
The video begins by explaining the horrible things that could happen if a boy is raised by a single mother: he'll be more feminine. Aside from the fact that that's untrue, it makes the homophobic statement that there's something wrong if men have typical female traits. "Yuck, they're acting like women. Somebody please get these ladyboys into the army and doing manly stuff right now." :lol



falling down said:


> Or you could have just not read into my post more than there actually was and assume that I was a misogynist POS? Just a suggestion. :stu
> 
> Your sarcasm comes off as misdirected* anger and bitterness* to me. And I never once said this "Women don't pay for nothin. Men do everything." You interpreted that on your own.


That's cute; repeating what I wrote to you after the angry message.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> That's cute; repeating what I wrote to you after the angry message.


Here you go instigating again.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

falling down said:


> Here you go instigating again.


Me? I'm pretty sure you're the one who started the insults there, bud.


----------



## falling down (Oct 17, 2011)

I'm pretty sure you're the one who is always taking me to task on almost every word I post, like a troll, almost to the point of internet terrorism. I post something and for some reason you initiate with me and feel a need to piss on my parade, for lack of a better term, and spray hot feminist garbage all over me like I'm some sort of misogynist pig. And your posts never seem nice, they are always laced with shards of sarcasm, disguised digs and backhanded insults. Then you wonder why you are receiving abrasive responses. Gee, I wonder why that's happening.


----------



## meganmila (Jul 25, 2011)

Ok people you have to drop it before this thread gets locked. Heh..maybe it should anyways.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

falling down said:


> I'm pretty sure you're the one who is always taking me to task on almost every word I post, like a troll, almost to the point of internet terrorism. I post something and for some reason you initiate with me and feel a need to piss on my parade, for lack of a better term, and spray hot feminist garbage all over me like I'm some sort of misogynist pig. And your posts never seem nice, they are always laced with shards of sarcasm, disguised digs and backhanded insults. Then you wonder why you are receiving abrasive responses. Gee, I wonder why that's happening.


Internet terrorism. Nice way to trivialize actual terrorism. :lol
It's so funny how you're "calling me out" when I've constantly seen you insult people here, and not just me. Stop crying about it already.

I only wonder why I get abrasive emails from _somebody_ calling me a "retard." You must be taking this way too personally. I don't think the internet is a good place for you. I'm just thinking of your well being here.



meganmila said:


> Ok people you have to drop it before this thread gets locked. Heh..*maybe it should anyways.*


I'm definitely not against that.


----------

