Yes they are. No seriously; I have never once heard a regressive leftist say that sex work, that is to say having sex with someone for money, is "empowering". They have called selling what is little more than titillation empowering, basically just showing off you cleavage on a Twitch stream, but that's something completely different.
But I am, and I too would like some clarification on what your point was.
I said that men would like the woman they are with to be sluts/slutty towards them and them alone. My mistake in more of how I described whores.Words mean things. Usually it's the regressive left I have to explain that to.
Describing what whores are is demonizing men? Lol
Again, with the pretending to be ignorant. You have been here for a while man. You know what the hell I'm talking about when I talk about the Slippery slope.
I made a comment that I can understand why Certified feels the way he does. Whats so hard in this post to understand exactly? You can disagree with it which is fine. But whats exactly difficult to comprehend?
Actually, I think I get it now; your argument is that if prostitution wasn't shamed, more women would become prostitutes. I suppose the logic is sound, but I doubt every woman would become one; for one thing, supply and demand would ensure that, if such a thing were to happen, the job would pay basically nothing due to the glut of supply, thereby driving down interest in it as an occupation.
Exactly. When something is no longer shamed. It becomes celebrated. Especially when said thing has tons of fucking money involved.
Five credits have been deposited in your Microsoft bank account.
Lol, I wish.
Well again, if every girl became a prostitute, there wouldn't be that much money to go around for all of them. I'm not even sure turning tricks would net you higher wages than flipping burgers, with such an overabundance in labor. We'd probably see some sort of increase in women pursuing a career in sex work, but not so much that men wouldn't be able to find someone who didn't work in the field as a partner.
You can't live like morality is subjective. Within a minute, you started talking about what society "needs to change".
In that you say men only want sluts/whores and are not interested in the romance aspect of relationships. This is an argument right out of the purple-haired feminist handbook that describes men as little more than animals.
Not really. About all I can assume is that you're referring to your horribly made arguments, in which case, no, we're not there, so you can hardly claim such. I suppose that fits in with the absurdity of your other two main points, though.
The arguments you made are nonsense. You may be only trying to explain how another poster feels, but the argument you made is still nonsense.
People romanticize the past, but it really wasn't that great, especially for women. I suppose realizing this would require being able to put yourself in their shoes, though.
No, things would pretty much remain the same for the majority of people
Just because something is no longer shamed, it does not follow that it would then become celebrated. This is absurdity. You also seem to think it would be instant riches for anyone getting into it, but it's subject to the same market forces as everything else.
That drag kids thing is going to help spell the end of the regressive left. If you conservatives should be jumping all over that to help make it happen.
And this is your other absurd argument, based on an assumption that all women would want to become prostitutes, which is without any kind of basis.
The funny thing is, I rather like the idea of sex bots as an option and an outlet for people, though admittedly a big part of that is how much autistic screeching is coming from the intersectional feminist crowd. I have a feeling that the reasoning Terthna suggested for why the sex-negative feminists are against sex work in general applies for why they are against that, which is to say that they don't want men to have an outlet or an option that doesn't include them.
It is and humanity at large already does live like that, because every group has a different sense of morality. That Venn diagram can overlap in some places, but it's still different depending on what group you are part of.
So? Not sure what kind of a "gotcha" you think you have there, but its immaterial to the subject of marriage in the US.
I'm stupid for doing this but I will reply to this as I just can't deal with the stupid.
Well thanks for clarifying that point. And here I thought you were making a generalization about men and women.
I don't because you won't explain it. I mean, you explained your last point, so why not this one? Or are you afraid I'll rake you over the coals with it? 😏
How can you not get it? Do you accept specific points and take them as describing literally everything? Relationships are not just about sex. Of fucking course I was talking about sex and everything related to it when I said men want their women to be slutty towards them. What the fuck did you think I meant?
Lol, you haven't raked anything buddy. I don't accept anything you have said. You don't accept anything I have said.
What you said. Which wasn't that.
I mean, you're not wrong about the stuff happening, but it isn't because of marriage equality so much as others taking advantage. You can already see the effect of this as they are already throwing gay men under the bus now that they are no longer of any use for them.
None of that was in any of your posts I was responding to, which dealt with prostitution. You can't go on an on about a slippery slope and just expect everyone to know what the hell you're talking about, especially when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Yes, actually.
Every time you say society is this or that, you imply certain codes of morality are more true than others.
Because I believe what they stood for was morally wrong. Morality being subjective does not invalidate one's own beliefs on what is and is not moral; it merely explains how different people in different circumstances can come to different conclusions on that subject.
It's really not though is the thing. Men and men like me do not infact consider hoes to be women. They are two different things goes exist for sex while women exist for companionship. The two are not in any way the same not should they be treated the same way.In that you say men only want sluts/whores and are not interested in the romance aspect of relationships. This is an argument right out of the purple-haired feminist handbook that describes men as little more than animals.
Not really. About all I can assume is that you're referring to your horribly made arguments, in which case, no, we're not there, so you can hardly claim such. I suppose that fits in with the absurdity of your other two main points, though.
The arguments you made are nonsense. You may be only trying to explain how another poster feels, but the argument you made is still nonsense.
People romanticize the past, but it really wasn't that great, especially for women. I suppose realizing this would require being able to put yourself in their shoes, though.
No, things would pretty much remain the same for the majority of people
Just because something is no longer shamed, it does not follow that it would then become celebrated. This is absurdity. You also seem to think it would be instant riches for anyone getting into it, but it's subject to the same market forces as everything else.
That drag kids thing is going to help spell the end of the regressive left. If you conservatives should be jumping all over that to help make it happen.
And this is your other absurd argument, based on an assumption that all women would want to become prostitutes, which is without any kind of basis.
The funny thing is, I rather like the idea of sex bots as an option and an outlet for people, though admittedly a big part of that is how much autistic screeching is coming from the intersectional feminist crowd. I have a feeling that the reasoning Terthna suggested for why the sex-negative feminists are against sex work in general applies for why they are against that, which is to say that they don't want men to have an outlet or an option that doesn't include them.
It is and humanity at large already does live like that, because every group has a different sense of morality. That Venn diagram can overlap in some places, but it's still different depending on what group you are part of.
So? Not sure what kind of a "gotcha" you think you have there, but its immaterial to the subject of marriage in the US.
Nonetheless, under your logic, our positions are morally equivalent. Of course we can have our own morality. Subjective morality is little more than personal preference. However, only objective morality allows us to make a value judgement.
Meanwhile, I say that organized religion is wrong. All the violence done in its name, its rejection of science, and the abuses perpetrated by those it gives power over others to proves me right. That's the issue with claiming that something is objectively moral; there's no shortage of justifications one can point to for one's own beliefs on what is and is not moral, and if it was truly objective, we wouldn't be arguing about it with each other. The simple fact that I don't agree with you that free love is wrong (or rather, its original form as the belief that the state had no business meddling in sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery), and you don't agree that organized religion is wrong, despite the evidence each of us presents to justify our beliefs, is itself proof that trying to determine objective morality is far more difficult than you assumed.