ITT: Moe can't grapple with such sophisticated concepts as victimless crime and harm reduction.
I'm sure there's something you know about, but sociology doesn't seem to be it.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Legalized Prostitution?
Legalized Prostitution?Follow
#53Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 01 2011 at 5:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Don't fault me for your inability to follow a thread or anything for that matter.
Nilatai wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Where were you when people were supporting the concept of women being naturally born ugly due to mutations?! I didn't see you mention anything about sexism or disrespect to women.
This has nothing to do with this thread, or anything else, for that matter. Shut the fUck up.
Nads, don't make me send you to the naughty step. I know it's hard, for all of us. One day at a time.
Yeah, I know. In my defense, that's the first time in weeks I've responded to him. And I'm done. I got it out of my system.
Nadenu wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Where were you when people were supporting the concept of women being naturally born ugly due to mutations?! I didn't see you mention anything about sexism or disrespect to women.
This has nothing to do with this thread, or anything else, for that matter. Shut the fUck up.
Nads, don't make me send you to the naughty step. I know it's hard, for all of us. One day at a time.
Yeah, I know. In my defense, that's the first time in weeks I've responded to him. And I'm done. I got it out of my system.
It's okay, it's all any of us can do. It's a long road to recovery. Just follow the 12 step programme and it'll all be fine.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Almalieque wrote:
Well, ok. I was just trying to figure out if you were either a hypocrite and/or a racist. I guess I'll just take my best judgement then.
I'm crushed, I promise.
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm saying that if the man wants to have sex, money is spent one way or the other. The woman doesn't have to pay a dime. She can actually get paid to do so, hence the topic of prostitution.
So, again, how is that sexist?
Let me break it down to you.
If a man met a woman and started talking, he could potentially get her number, IM,etc. at no additional price or time spent. He could say "Hey, lets go shoot some hoops tomorrow at the court" or "Let's play some MvC3 online" at NO ADDITIONAL cost.
On the other hand, if he were to say "My, you look very sexy, let's have sex this weekend", the likelihood of her agreeing to that is slim to none even if she were sexually attracted him. Time and money would have to be spent before she would be comfortable around him, accept him, meet personal time restrictions, etc. to sleep with him.
That is reality, not sexism.
So, again, how is that sexist?
Let me break it down to you.
If a man met a woman and started talking, he could potentially get her number, IM,etc. at no additional price or time spent. He could say "Hey, lets go shoot some hoops tomorrow at the court" or "Let's play some MvC3 online" at NO ADDITIONAL cost.
On the other hand, if he were to say "My, you look very sexy, let's have sex this weekend", the likelihood of her agreeing to that is slim to none even if she were sexually attracted him. Time and money would have to be spent before she would be comfortable around him, accept him, meet personal time restrictions, etc. to sleep with him.
That is reality, not sexism.
So... explain to me again how you're not saying that the cost of the relationship (a.k.a. sex, apparently) is paid by the man and not the woman...?
No, really. Keep talking. Because you sound more and more like an asshole who doesn't respect women at all.
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Hell, I've paid for dinner and a movie with a friend before, I certainly didn't expect her to scissor me later...
But would you let her?
Depends which friend we're talking about here. What does that have to do with anything...? Other than fueling your fantasies about me, that is.
Perhaps revealing the trick will be its undoing, but I find that ignoring a pestering child (in this case, child-like intelligence) is ineffective, particularly when they get the occasional feedback they crave. The trick is to bore them with unfaltering monotony. Once you deprive them of any novelty, they lose their motivation to engage. Can I get a 
?
?
#58Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 01 2011 at 6:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wow... unfortunately, you couldn't be any more incorrect. I actually lose interest in responding to many of you all. That's why I started quoting myself when I catch myself being redundant.
Now wait just a god damn minute, Alma. Where exactly does race come into this? We're discussing gender relations, and misogyny doesn't make you a racist in any way, shape or form.
This is some newspeak ******** and I simply will not stand for it. Get yourself together or you're in for a stern talking-to.
This is some newspeak ******** and I simply will not stand for it. Get yourself together or you're in for a stern talking-to.
Jophiel wrote:
I suppose I could support a "legal with tight regulations" thing
So after a few rounds, its no longer legal if she's not tight?
/hides
Edited, Aug 1st 2011 8:27pm by xantav
Almalieque wrote:
Sex != a relationship.
I'm sorry if you think the two are the same.
I'm sorry if you think the two are the same.
Actually, I was trying to point out that you seem to be equating the two. As you said earlier:
Almalieque wrote:
The suggestion is that a woman isn't just going to have sex with a complete stranger without having some form of a relationship. Relationships cost money.
So, in your words, a man is only going to bear the brunt of paying for an entire relationship in the hopes that the woman will have sex with him.
Which is pretty sexist.
ETA: To forestall the inevitable: This particular idea of yours is sexist towards men, not women here. At least you're an equal opportunity hater.
Almalieque wrote:
If you can't understand the concept that a man is not likely to have sex with a woman without spending additional money that he wouldn't have paid otherwise, then that's not fault at me. You even said yourself that you don't believe the average woman has sex with strangers. So, your only valid argument would be that the average woman pays for everything.
Hey, man. It's not my fault that you seem to think that women are money hungry whores.
Belkira wrote:
No, really. Keep talking. Because you sound more and more like an @#%^ who doesn't respect women at all.
ETA: It's so interesting that you think it has to be one party that pays everything in a relationship. It's also interesting that you're boiling everything down to just money all of a sudden.
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Perhaps revealing the trick will be its undoing, but I find that ignoring a pestering child (in this case, child-like intelligence) is ineffective, particularly when they get the occasional feedback they crave. The trick is to bore them with unfaltering monotony. Once you deprive them of any novelty, they lose their motivation to engage. Can I get a
Wow... unfortunately, you couldn't be any more incorrect. I actually lose interest in responding to many of you all. That's why I started quoting myself when I catch myself being redundant.
My idea scenario is short to no responses. I would much rather respond to a post like yours because I get no response back, I still get the point across, I don't have to repeat myself, I spend less time and I still get the +1.
So, the only way to guarantee my disappearance is to not talk at all or talk about thing relevant in life.
That wasn't me, dearie.
Edited, Aug 1st 2011 7:33pm by Belkira
I'd support legalizing it, though I doubt I'd ever avail myself of the services. Rosy Palm is free, after all.
I'll pass on the dating scenarios as I haven't dated since the 80's and have no clue of current protocols on who pays.
IN BEFORE "GODDAM, YOU ARE ******* OLDE"
I'll pass on the dating scenarios as I haven't dated since the 80's and have no clue of current protocols on who pays.
IN BEFORE "GODDAM, YOU ARE ******* OLDE"
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Quote:
So, the only way to guarantee my disappearance is to not talk at all or talk about thing relevant in life.
You're stupid, delusional, and a liar
#64Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 01 2011 at 7:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) ???- Who said anything about "money hungry"? Just because money is spent, doesn't mean that the partner is "money hungry". The dates can be equally split down the center. That doesn't make her "money hungry", but the guy still had to pay more than what he would normally have had.
#65Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 01 2011 at 7:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Now you're catching on.... These are the types of posts I like... Simple and incorrect. A simple one liner of disproof and I'm done, with a +1.
Almalieque wrote:
These are the types of posts I like... Simple and incorrect.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
xantav wrote:
So after a few rounds, its no longer legal if she's not tight?
/hides
/hides
Between that, not having any energy for pot legislation and not wanting $25 hooker to come near me, I'm surprised it took that long for a comment.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
These are the types of posts I like... Simple and incorrect.
What's been incorrect thus far?
Or is that a simple and incorrect post in itself?
Almalieque wrote:
Your inference was wrong.
Sex =! relationship... BUT if an average man wants to have sex the average woman, he's more than likely will have to date someone. The likelihood of him being able to just find someone to have sex with just to complete his sexual desire with nothing more than a "Let's have sex" is highly unlikely.
Sex =! relationship... BUT if an average man wants to have sex the average woman, he's more than likely will have to date someone. The likelihood of him being able to just find someone to have sex with just to complete his sexual desire with nothing more than a "Let's have sex" is highly unlikely.
Yes. One-night stands never happen. Ever.
Almalieque wrote:
I'm seriously holding back my tongue. I didn't say nor claim that a man will pay for an entire relationship. I said, that if an average man wants to have sex with an average woman, he will have to be in some sort of relationship. Unless the woman is paying for the entire relationship, then he is spending additional money that he wouldn't have had spent being single.
You're unnecessarily merging sex and a relationship. Sex is nothing more than an activity. As I so clearly pointed out in my other example. I can easily get a woman's phone number, I'M, PSN name, play a sport with me, watch a movie or any other activity without having to pay any additional money that I would have paid anyway. Sex is not one of those activities.
Tl:DR.. The average woman just isn't going to sleep with a man just because he asks nicely, unlike other activities.
You're unnecessarily merging sex and a relationship. Sex is nothing more than an activity. As I so clearly pointed out in my other example. I can easily get a woman's phone number, I'M, PSN name, play a sport with me, watch a movie or any other activity without having to pay any additional money that I would have paid anyway. Sex is not one of those activities.
Tl:DR.. The average woman just isn't going to sleep with a man just because he asks nicely, unlike other activities.
You do realize that doing those free activities can also end up in a sexual relationship... right? You also understand, I hope (but probably not) that you're being completely one sided here. "A man has to pay for sex via a relationship." That goes both ways. If an average woman wants to have sex with a man, but, as you say, wants to get to know him first, then she has to invest in a relationship as well. Therefore, they are both paying for the sexual activity that will result from a relationship.
But, honestly, my biggest sore point with your ramblings is that going on dates and being in a relationship (and therefore spending the money and investing the emotion required for such) is all for the end result of sex.
Almalieque wrote:
???- Who said anything about "money hungry"?
You insist that a woman will not have sex with you until you spend money on her. That sounds money hungry to me.
I'll take that apology for attributing an entire quote to me when I wasn't the one who said it now, please.
I thought that if an average man wants to have sex with an average woman, he goes to a bar or other pickup location. PROTIP: you don't actually have to buy women their drinks; "can I buy you a drink?" is just an easy way to start a conversation. There are plenty of options for casual sex for an average guy. Heck, there's even a "Casual Encounters" section on Craigslist for that kind of thing.
If you are trying to have sex with a woman who only wants to have sex within a relationship, well then I guess you have to enter a relationship to get some. To look at that as a cost of buying sex is just kind of ridiculous, and it's pretty disingenuous to enter into a relationship with a woman who is clearly looking for more than just sex, when your sole purpose is to bed her.
If you are trying to have sex with a woman who only wants to have sex within a relationship, well then I guess you have to enter a relationship to get some. To look at that as a cost of buying sex is just kind of ridiculous, and it's pretty disingenuous to enter into a relationship with a woman who is clearly looking for more than just sex, when your sole purpose is to bed her.
Monsieur Spoonless wrote:
I thought that if an average man wants to have sex with an average woman, he goes to a bar or other pickup location. PROTIP: you don't actually have to buy women their drinks; "can I buy you a drink?" is just an easy way to start a conversation. There are plenty of options for casual sex for an average guy. Heck, there's even a "Casual Encounters" section on Craigslist for that kind of thing.
If you are trying to have sex with a woman who only wants to have sex within a relationship, well then I guess you have to enter a relationship to get some. To look at that as a cost of buying sex is just kind of ridiculous, and it's pretty disingenuous to enter into a relationship with a woman who is clearly looking for more than just sex, when your sole purpose is to bed her.
If you are trying to have sex with a woman who only wants to have sex within a relationship, well then I guess you have to enter a relationship to get some. To look at that as a cost of buying sex is just kind of ridiculous, and it's pretty disingenuous to enter into a relationship with a woman who is clearly looking for more than just sex, when your sole purpose is to bed her.
No, Spoonless. Women don't want to have sex like men do. Didn't you know that...?
Also, women never pick up men. Men always have to be the aggressor.
Monsieur Spoonless wrote:
Also, women never pick up men. Men always have to be the aggressor.
It helps if you hit us over the head with a club and drag us back to your mancave by the hair.
The whole "dragging back to the mancave" seems like a superfluous step. Plus, if/when you wake up, there's the danger of floral prints being implemented in decorative fashion.
Monsieur Spoonless wrote:
The whole "dragging back to the mancave" seems like a superfluous step. Plus, if/when you wake up, there's the danger of floral prints being implemented in decorative fashion.
It's part of what you have to pay for the sex.
#76Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 01 2011 at 8:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) As soon as you truthfully answer my question that you ignored, please.
Recent Visitors: 228
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (228)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Legalized Prostitution?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC