Women oppress men by “playing” at having a career
Silly woman! You probably don't even know how to work that computer.
Well, here’s a new twist. We all know, from reading the endless tirades on the subject scattered all over the manosphere, that women are evil, selfish and ungrateful creatures whose primary goal in life is to leech off of men and make them miserable.
In a recent post titled Playing Career Woman, manosphere blogger Dalrock takes on some of the most evil and selfish ladies of the whole lot of them: upper middle class ladies who insist on going to college and getting jobs, then later leave the workforce to raise their children.
You might think that these ladies would deserve some props from traditional-minded manosphere dudes for supporting themselves instead of leeching off of men during their twenties, then settling into a more traditional housewifely role once they have children.
Oh, but you don’t realize just how evil and disruptive and oppressive their phony careers are to the men of the world. After all, these aren’t women who need to work to support themselves. No, according to Dalrock, these are “women who use their education and career as a way to check off the box to prove their feminist credentials before settling down into an entirely traditional role.”
According to Escoffier, a commenter on Dalrock’s site whom he quotes with approval, in the good old pre-feminist days:
Women who pursued careers (apart from traditional female roles such as teaching … ) were considered at best sort of harmlessly odd … but we know that family life is superior and more important.
Then came feminism:
Now it’s “You MUST do this for own sake, not to do it is to not realize your potential.” …
The way the [upper middle class] has “solved” this problem is to send girls to college, let them launch their careers–whether in soggy girly stuff like PR or crunchy stuff like business and law–and then they marry late (~30), have kids a few years later and drop out of working at least until the kids are grown.
This answers a couple of needs, not least the need for two incomes to accumulate assets so that the couple can eventually buy into a UMC school district.
Oh, but these women aren’t really earning money because they need it to, you know, pay bills and shit:
[T]he real importance of this solution is to her psyche. Getting the education and career are a way of telegraphing “I am a complete person, not some drone like June Cleaver. I am just as smart and capable as any man. In my altruistic concern for my children, I choose not to use my talent in the marketplace but to devote myself to them.” In other words, she needs that education and early career to mark her as better than a mere housewife, even though she will eventually choose to become a housewife.
According to Dalrock, such women are far more evil than the feminist women who get jobs and stick with them. (Emphasis added.)
Men and women who work hard to support themselves understand that they are in it for the duration. There is a determined realism to them. … These aren’t the women we are talking about. The women Escoffier described see having a career as a badge of status to be collected on their way to their ultimate goal of stay at home housewife. They aren’t really career women, they are playing career woman much the way that Marie Antoinette played peasant and Zoolander’s character played coal miner.
In the comments, someone calling himself Carnivore explains just how unfair this all is to the poor innocent working men of the world:
When men get a degree or go through a vocational program and then land a job, they’ve normally got 40+ years to contribute to increasing the wealth of society. Women “playing” career damage society:
1. They displace men for positions in college or vocational school.
2. Upon landing a job, they displace other men for the job position.
3. The increase in the labor pool drives down wages (supply & demand).
4. While in the labor pool, women are less effective and less productive than men.
5. Because they are in the labor pool and cannot compete with men, women support labor laws to enforce “equality” which burden businesses and can cause men to get fired due to some infringement or just to meet quotas.
6. When they leave the labor pool after becoming bored, there is now a hole than can be difficult to fill because the men who would normally fill it have been displaced for all the reasons above.
Carnivore places part of the blame on the feminism-infected parents who taught these women the wrong things:
Women do NOT know what they want. They have to be guided. Most parents have so bought into feminism that they don’t see any other way. It’s a riot – or sad – talking to parents when they go into all the detail about choosing a college, going on campus visits, making sure she gets into the best school, etc., etc. You would think these parents would spend their time and energy on prepping their daughters for the most important life decision – choosing a man for marriage, how to make a husband happy and how to raise healthy children.
The commenter called Ray takes it one step further:
i was in the workplaces during feminism 1.0, and it had nothing to do with fairness, equity, egalitarianism, or any other positive attribute
in fact, it was a slaughter, resulting in the vast disenfranchisement and destruction of millions of american men — there were dozens of ways men could be hassled, RIFd, and forced from employment, and they were (all to chants of Equality and Empowerment)
this resulted in the massive unemployment of the very men needed to create, invent, and revitalize the culture. and to be fathers to sons . …
no female should be employed, or educated, if it means a qualified male must be excluded
Women, stop leeching off men by paying your own way!
NOTE: This post contains SARCASM.
Posted on November 27, 2011, in $MONEY$, antifeminism, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, life before feminism, misogyny, oppressed men, patriarchy, reactionary bullshit. Bookmark the permalink. 1,774 Comments.
Can you describe what a “slut” does? Where’s the cutoff? Can you give us something more than “They give me the VAPORS”?
I am trying to figure out where I said that Brandon was a necrophiliac and I am not seeing it. I did say that Ashley is not real and/or a plastic doll so at most making a claim that he is an agalmatophiliac but not someone who fucks dead things.
*shrugs* well if it turns out I did, I was wrong and he is an agalmatophiliac.
See what I did there Brandon? I admitted I do not remember making a claim, admitted I can most definitely be wrong and did not act like a four year old. It would behoove you to learn from it.
VoiP: They only give him the vapors if they aren’t fun sluts, or want to get married; and are women.
Male sluts are different,and so long as they aren’t looking to have more than a short fling sluts are DaBOMB!, but if they expect to be treated like people…. that’s an altogether different kettle of fish.
Then he is as prudish as anyone; but it’s not that he cares what other people think, it’s been carefully thought out. If we knew how he came to that decision we might understand.
It all depends on what the actual working definition is.
But we don’t have one. I can’t look at a woman and predict if Brandon will call her a good slut, or a bad one (assuming she isn’t a feminist, in which case, ipso facto she’s a man-hater, which is different from being a slut; though I am sure he sees some overlap in the bad sluts and the man-haters).
I have a problem like that-I do not have the same logic everyone else does so I tend to have to stop, refit what I think into normal logic. And I fail a lot at it because I tend to just blurt things out. :/
Pecunium said this:
In support, in this thread alone we have the following Statements From Brandon:
27 Nov, 11:22 pm
27 Nov, 11:54pm:
This one’s adorable; in the same breath that he says sluts can’t commit he expresses his refusal to commit to the hypothetical mother of his child.
28 Nov, 12:02 am
28 Nov, 12:21 am
“Those women”? How do you know they’re “those women”? What marked them out to you?
Why do you believe sluts are incapable of love? You’ve slept around on past girlfriends before (let me remind the thread that one of his “dealbreakers” is that she cares), but when I said that you were cheating on Ashley, you blew up. You believe, therefore, that you are capable of loyalty even though you’ve slept with lots of women. Why are you loyal?
And again today:
I love your word choice here; slutty people need to be “handled.” That’s fantastic.
You’ve slept around. A lot. Would you describe your desire to cheat on Ashley as comparable to the desire of an addict for heroin? Stronger? Less strong?
Brandon’s view of promiscuity is so VICTORIAN. “I can’t see any respectable man marrying them “??? I thought he was all about enlightened attitudes toward sex!
And when I press him in debate, he backs down and waffles. Then he ignores me: I’m still waiting on what he thinks about my dad, and about what a terrible person I was to “put my trust” in him, as required by the courts and the State of New Mexico.
This is more true than you will ever grasp.
What makes a man “respectable,” Brandon?
Brandon: “Geez, you guys, I just think sluts are like heroin addicts that should be pumped and dumped for fun sexytimes! I dunno why you’re so annoyed with me, that’s just my OPINION!”
Sorry, my eyes skipped: “slutty people are handling their urges,” not “other people are handling them.” Now I see what you meant.
I find the implication that I cannot be loyal because I take multiple partners when I am free to do so insulting in the extreme. Especially since I have never once cheated on any partner, ever, and I was cheated on twice by a man who described himself as a “hopeless romantic” and a serial monogamist. He’s also the one who called me a slut (very much in the pejorative sense) when I had had three partners. He’d had seven.
Hate to think what his reaction to my number of partners would be now.
Also, what about having multiple partners makes it so that I’m not thinking long term?
What I don’t get, Brandon, is why you spend so much time thinking about whether or not sluts would be good wives while you are against marriage as a whole.
I mean, I am against human sacrifice, so until now I had never spent a second wondering whether virgins, sluts or something in between will work better!
About respect. You can’t just not insult individuals and not throw slurs, that’s far from enough to earn respect. You also have to respect logic, and be consistent.
For example, you can’t argue in bad faith with someone then expect every other person to pretend they don’t know anything about you.
You can’t throw insulting allegations (many times) at someone, refuse to justify this opinion (repeating “it’s just my opinion” does not count) then expect respect from any of us. And saying “I insulted her because I was hoping to hurt her” is definitely not a good explanation. That’s just an admission of dishonesty.
“What I don’t get, Brandon, is why you spend so much time thinking about whether or not sluts would be good wives while you are against marriage as a whole.”
I wondered that too, Kyrie. For a little bit I thought Brandon was *for* marriage until I was reminded about the whole debate about whether or not marriage could just be replaced with a few contracts.
Hellkell, I NEVER said, and would never want, women-at-large to work in brothels. A lot of you are so sexually neuter that, since you insist upon bringing up the subject, you modern women couldn’t excite a paying customer sexually more than a dead fish! In my discussion as what to do with women who loved sex with multiple partners, who had difficulties with normal feminine monogamy, or who craved sex outside of marraige, I suggested faciiities where such women could work (and play) in a safe, clean, and sometimes even an enjoyable environment. These houses could, and would, also entertain men in ways that didn’t necessarily include sex. and there is no reason why they could not also have theatres, taverns, and even establishments like the Japanese houses of geishas or XVII and XVIII century French salons, where men could enjoy wit and conversation with the charms of ladies’ companionship, even without sex!
Two things are clear:
One, the more versatile a woman, regardless of age or physical appearance, is in fulfilling a client’s desires and wishes, the more money she would make for both herself and the House, and secondly, her chances for marrying a man of substance, who could support her and her children well, would be considerably increased by such Houses of Entertainment, far beyond what she, or other women from families of limited means, could hope for elsewhere! Her winning a matrimonial “prize” could not be guaranteed, of course, but it would be far better than the kind of men she would almost certainly be associating with in a typical “trailer park” or “urban ghetto”! The Houses of Entertainment may also be working with what we know as adoption centers or child-placement facilies who specialize in the placement of children of such unwed mothers in safe and loving homes–NOT crackhouses, street gang hangouts, or government mandated foster-“care”, where all that happens is the child is shunted away from an abusive environment provided by a mother (so-called) who cannot care for herself–into a worse one under the auspices of Childrens “Protective Services”. In short, my idea of taming oversexed women, while it may not be perfect, offers women (and any children, to say nothing of the public at large) far more even in its raw state, than anything you feminists have offered in the past century or two!
FORCED to “work in a brothel”? Not at all! Prefer to work in a House of Men’s Entertainment, because of superior safety, opportunity, and hygiene? Absolutely!!
hellkell, there may be areas where the two of us can agree to disagree, but this is one I would be very careful about if I were you! You–and other modern women a.k.a. feminists– haven’t got anything better!
Wait, when did hellkell and I become the same person?
“hellkell, there may be areas where the two of us can agree to disagree, but this is one I would be very careful about if I were you! You–and other modern women a.k.a. feminists– haven’t got anything better!”
OK, ignoring the part where hellkell and I just merged into Feminist Voltron…we have plenty of better alternatives, Meller. Most of us are living them right now. My sex life is peachy, thanks, and pretty much always has been. I’m quite happy with my ability to arrange my sex life in ways that suit me, which the modern world allows me to do.
So why on earth would I be interested in your proposal for how you’d like to organize my life for me? I mean, it’s not going to happen anyway, but in theory? You’re the only person who’s miserable with the current set of arrangements. The rest of us are perfectly happy.
In my discussion as what to do with women who liked cake, who had difficulties with eating the normal feminine diet of one chicken breast and a piece of lettuce, daily, or who craved cake, I suggested facilities where such women would be forcefed until they died.
Meller, a women who’s had sex with more than one person in her life does not automatically “prefer” becoming a prostitute.
The weird thing is, once you realize that all Brandon’s doing is arguing against anyone who doesn’t identify as an MRA on this site, his constantly changing stories and slippery refusals to be specific become completely consistent. His only real point is that he disagrees with everyone, no matter what they say or how accurately they quote him.
Meller: Go touch yourself in front of a collectible doll. No one here cares.
You’re both women; your identity doesn’t matter to him.
Wait wait wait: what if the denizens of the “trailer park”…are white?
So what if I just want to have more than one partner and don’t wanna work in your House of Entertainment, DKM? I don’t have any trouble buying my own condoms or doing my own laundry so I’m safe AND clean–and when I want my partners to go home I can tell them so, instead of having to serve them tea and make them laugh when all I wanna do is sleep!
Meller, again, as an ally who works for sex workers rights, many of the sex workers I know are feminists.Shock Horror. And not a few are LIBERTARIAN feminists!! Shock. Horror. Many sex workers do not prefer the brothel model, and can handle their OWN hygeine (shock! Horror!) (I am opposed to mandatory “health checks” by the government for sex workers – The horror stories add up quickly, for just one reason, but never mind) I’m not saying that society couldn’t have salons, and courtesan model sex work and etc, but your odd view of women in sex work trying to land a rich man, and happily preferring your HOUSES OF MALE ENTERTAINMENT is pretty bonkers. And why on earth can a sex worker not RAISE HER OWN CHILD? Or already HAVE a husband. SHOCK! HORROR!
These are major libertarian issues, btw, and you’ve never encountered a sex workers rights activist despite your claim of long libertarian involvement? Or you have, and just come up with your weird sci fi victorian brothel idea anyway?
Meller, I’ve been with the same man for seven years. He is the only partner I’ve ever had; in fact, we lost our virginity to each other. We’re not married. Do you expect me to go willingly to your Houses of Entertainment, or would the people who took me away have to use force?
Just like Brandon, he believes that “women like that” are incapable of “real” love.
Also, I don’t even know where to start unraveling the class stuff in DKM’s little screed there. I’d be forced to say something like, “But white, middle income people can be sluts TOO!”… and just typing that made me really uncomfortable.
How does sex even work in Mellerland? The white ladies at the top are virginal til marriage, and all the black people are too dumb to use contraception or choose decent partners and too animal to not be sluts?
Molly, are you absolutely SURE you don’t live in a crackhouse? Because I think those are your only two alternatives…
“Just like Brandon, he believes that ‘women like that’ are incapable of ‘real’ love.”
TBH, I’m not sure if Brandon has ever been in love with anyone. He keeps viewing relationships strictly in terms of monetary transactions…
@Voip: I actually live in an apartment and I don’t do drugs because they scare the shit out of me. I’m a disgustingly middle class straight edge slut.
Also, assuming based on previous statements that you want to end the drug war, why are there gangs and crack houses? In a laissez faire utopia, you claim intense structural poverty
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/scratching-by-how-government-creates-poverty-as-we-know-it/
and a criminal drug trade will still exist because of.. OH wait, let me guess, that’s what happens to non-white-males?
Meanwhile, I’m pretty devout in my religion and I’m also terrified of being touched by people I don’t know really well. The people who came to take me away would probably have to use force.
“The Houses of Entertainment may also be working with what we know as adoption centers or child-placement facilies who specialize in the placement of children of such unwed mothers in safe and loving homes…”
These places won’t even have CONDOMS? No birth control at all? How frakking “safe” and “clean” can they be? o.O
Also, what is this blather about trailer parks etc? Do only working class people have extra-marital sex in the Meller fantasy universe? Because I went to a British boarding school (same one as some of the royal family, actually), and I have to tell you, there’s PLENTY of promiscuity among the upper classes.
Molly, we should put that in the book. The drug war needs to end, this will have the effect, in mellertopia’s “inner cities”, of, basically, not changing any of the negative effects of the drug war.
Also, Meller, there is no legal marriage. So why on earth are “unwed mothers” a problem? Even if the mother IS a sex worker. Why can’t competing “agencies” run for the support of single sex working moms not help her raise her child? Why can’t she join a farming community that welcomes single mothers and farm with them? Why can’t she apply for a grant and start a home business? Have you thought about why you really want this whole “libertarianism” thing? Seriously?
Sorry about the mixup, CassandraSays and hellkell. Sometimes feminists SOUND ALIKE on this blog. I’ll try to remember to tag my replies more carefully.
Why can’t a “sex worker” (as you somewhat degradingly call them) already have a husband? I don’t know, but wouldn’t a husband feel just a tad jealous about other man nibbling at HIS cupcake?
Why can’t a “sex worker’ raise her own child? I don’t want to go into too many questions here of inappropriate female role models, or maternal neglect (women committing to their “careers” over and above the time and interests of their child (ren)–sound familiar?
One child to another—“what does YOUR mommy do”? Other child replies “she’s the local sex worker”…
I–old fogie puritan that I am–think that there may be better answers to such questions that should be made available to the kid!
“One, the more versatile a woman, regardless of age or physical appearance, is in fulfilling a client’s desires and wishes, the more money she would make for both herself and the House, and secondly, her chances for marrying a man of substance, who could support her and her children well, would be considerably increased by such Houses of Entertainment, far beyond what she, or other women from families of limited means, could hope for elsewhere!”
Ugh, no women in Mellerland could ever become doctors. Or politicians. Or CEOs. There’s just NO OTHER WAY to make money than on your back!
I mean, I even *like* sex and this sounds horrible. There’s a reason why I was fired from my first job at a Starbucks: I hate just getting food and cleaning up after people I don’t like/don’t know, nevermind other forms of “service”.
Like being raised by strangers while her mother undergoes forced prostitution. What a Puritan.
DKM- A man who thinks his dollies have personalities has no business lecturing on how Society should deal with ‘over-sexed’ women. Although, sadly, you appear to have given an awful lot of thought to exactly how and with who those ‘over-sexed’ women should be having sex- and weirdly enough it doesn’t involve them simply arranging their personal lives as they see fit.
Hey, I’ve got an idea. How about you go talk to your dollies and stop telling us intricately detailed stories about how women who don’t meet your standard of fluffy loveliness should be glad to work in whorehouses? Your dollies won’t mind, because they are inanimate objects. And the rest of us won’t have to be creeped out wondering how long you’ve been daydreaming about this skeevy little plan of yours.
Women are human beings even when they are (gasp) having sex without your approval.
“One child to another—’what does YOUR mommy do’? Other child replies ‘she’s the local sex worker’…
“I–old fogie puritan that I am–think that there may be better answers to such questions that should be made available to the kid!”
So instead of letting the women work in other professions, you’ll just take their kids away whether they want to be “relieved” of them or not! BRILLIANT PLAN, MELLER!
Anyway, you didn’t answer me.
Meller, you do understand the distinction between “wants to sleep with more than one person ever” and “wants to make her living having sex”? My girlfriend is polyamorous but she wants to be a librarian. It’s possible!
Not to mention that there are a fuckload of serial monogamists out there your system just dicks over.
Cassandra, I nutshelled Meller’s utopia for Brandon earlier. I like the Feminist Voltron idea, though!
Meller, stop trying to backpedal. You want any woman who doesn’t confine to your narrow view of womanhood enslaved or dead. The how doesn’t really matter.
As for the other one, it’s cute that he’s having a tantrum now and thinking he can define the terms of engagement after months of weaselosity.
No. Husbands wouldn’t necessarily feel jealous about other men having sex with their spouses. Next question.
“Why can’t a “sex worker’ raise her own child? I don’t want to go into too many questions here of inappropriate female role models, or maternal neglect (women committing to their “careers” over and above the time and interests of their child (ren)–sound familiar? ”
Yes, that does sound like something you would say, and things you’ve said in the past. Maybe you should try to be less predictable?
“Why can’t a ‘sex worker’ (as you somewhat degradingly call them) already have a husband? I don’t know, but wouldn’t a husband feel just a tad jealous about other man nibbling at HIS cupcake?”
Hey, Meller, why aren’t there any male-only Houses of Entertainment in Mellerland? Are all the men monogamous? Or do women never get jealous about other women nibbling at their husband’s sausage?
Molly Ren–December 3, 2011 @4:24 pm
Of course they would have condoms, morning after pills, and perhaps even first trimester pregnancy termination services, in addition to adoption service networks. Just because I try to learn from the past regarding legalizing prostitution (and drugs) doesn’t mean that I am blind to what present (and future) free market technology offers everyone, especially women!
I know that upper-class couples engage in loose sex, but they have the resources to handle it discreetly, unless tabloids and “yellow journalism” deliberately make a scandal out of it to serve politial or financial ends and/or to boost circulation and ad revenue… e.g. Wallis Warfield Simpson and the British Crown Prince in 1936, or the Profumo affair in 1963.
My Entertainment Houses for Men would give the same discretion to poor women (and their families) as is normally enjoyed by the well-to-do. Once again, build a better mousetrap…
I’m going to ask you again:
I’ve been with the same man for seven years. He is the only partner I’ve ever had; in fact, we lost our virginity to each other. We’re not married. Do you expect me to go willingly to your Houses of Entertainment, or would the people who took me away have to use force?
Molly Ren– I already said that homosexuality is one area I would rather not get involved Where men entertain men is certainly possible, and there would be some avenue for it, I suppose, that would be better than what has been available here, but I just don’t know the details, and wouldn’t care to speculate! As far as women go, I would rather women be as monogamous as possible, at least elsewhere beside the Houses of Entertainment!
Again, Meller, most of the poor women who want multiple sex partners will not want to be placed in your Houses. How are you going to make them comply?
(This is of course hypothetical because, again, your dreams are never going to come true. Sucks to be you.)
“My Entertainment Houses for Men would give the same discretion to poor women (and their families) as is normally enjoyed by the well-to-do. Once again, build a better mousetrap…”
I think you thought I was asking if the wives of the men using the Houses of Entertainment would be okay with it. Let’s see if I can make that clearer…
If a MAN has more than one sex partner or cheats on his wife, will he be sent to a House of Entertainment as well for other women to use as she sees fit? Will he serve tea and be able to make more money than he ever would working in construction or as a lowly office drone?
oesn’t mean that I am blind to what present (and future) free market technology offers everyone, especially women!
Okay. That would also offer women sex worker’s rights agencies, sex worker friendly communities, and myriad employment opportunities, by it’s very nature. When markets are free, women have ALWAYS benifited greatly. I’m not a feminist libertarian because I like being called an oxymoron, I’m a feminist libertarian because I believe freed markets/voluntary socialism LIBERATES WOMEN. I’ve given you any number of libertarian texts arguing just that. You even admitted you needed to think about them. So I ask you, how, in a libertarian society, do you think these things will come about.
Also, seriously, you really claim ignorance of the term “sex worker” and call it degrading? Where have you been in libertarian politics for the last 20 years?
Meller, you’re not answering me. Are you ashamed?
I’ve been with the same man for seven years. He is the only partner I’ve ever had. We lost our virginity to each other. I’m scared of being touched by people I don’t know well. I believe that my religion prohibits my having more than one partner at once. My boyfriend and I are not married.
Do you expect me to go willingly to your Houses of Entertainment?
Also, if you personally would prefer that women be monogamous, that’s fine. Everyone is allowed to have preferences. It’s the part where you want to impose them on everyone else that’s not acceptable.
I prefer monogamy too! And yet there are multiple people who are poly on this page, and I feel no need to lecture them or force them to bend to my monogamy-preferring will.
Also, sometimes you gotta quote an O.C. Smith song in full.
Oh the path was deep and wide from footsteps leading to our cabin
Above the door there burned a scarlet lamp
And late at night a hand would knock and there would stand a stranger
Yes I’m the son of Hickory Holler’s tramp
Well the corn was dry the weeds were high when daddy took to drinking
Then him and Lucy Walker they took up and they ran away
Mama cried a tear and then she promised fourteen children
I swear you’ll never see a hungry day
When mama sacrificed her pride the neighbors started talkin’
But I was much too young to understand the things they said
Well the things that mattered most of all was mama’s chicken dumplings
And the goodnight kiss before we went to bed
Oh the path was deep and wide…
[ guitar ]
When daddy left then destitution came upon our family
Not one neighbor volunteered to lend us a helping hand
So just let them gossip all they want she loved us and she raised us
The proof is standing here in this full grown man
Last summer mama passed away and left the ones who loved her
Each and every one is more than grateful for their birth
Each Sunday she receives a big bouquet of fourteen roses
And the card that reads the greatest mom on earth
Well I said that the path was deep and wide…
Yes I’m the son of Hickory Holler’s tramp
VoiP-December 3, 2011 @4:40pm
You aren’t promiscouous, your sex isn’t available to everyone for the asking, and you are apparantly committed to your partner even outside of wedlock! I don’t see any place for you in the House of Entertainment (except as a customer). You certainly wouldn’t be taken by force! The entertainers are, as I indicated before, women who are compulsively and recklessly hypersexual, and unsuited for the kind of relationships that you describe!
Meller, I’m going to introduce you to a radical new concept you’ve probably never considered before.
Sometimes women (including straight women) have their own sexuality that revolves around entertaining and pleasuring THEMSELVES primarily and their partners (men) SECONDARILY.
And what’s wrong with the current system where women conduct their sex lives how they wish and where women choosing the jobs/careers they has absolutely no correlation to their sexualities?
If this is a laissez – faire society, why are there so many “poor people?” The whole HUGE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR AND LACK OF OPPORTUNITIES WILL BE HORRIBLE IF YOU LUNATICS GET YOUR WAY! Thing is supposed to be what our detractors THROW at us. “In libertarian land, poor women can be economically pressured into brothels” sure as hell doesn’t seem like a PRO-libertarian argument. Again, Meller, wtf?
My gf was watching a documentary about sex workers on Friday night: one of them in Sydney has organised an outreach program to educate sex workers on helping clients who are disabled, and the doco interviewed her, two of her Johns (one with cerebral palsy, one with MS) and the sex worker’s longtime partner. As sex workers tend to be good at sex, he had no issue with her line of work and was not jealous of her clients. The view that a husband or partner must be jealous of the sex worker’s work really is emblematic of the outdated concept of women as subservient chattel, which sounds like the exact financial arrangements you have with your porcelain dolls, Meller.
So, Meller, women would be taken by force? Who’s force? The government?
“I already said that homosexuality is one area I would rather not get involved Where men entertain men is certainly possible, and there would be some avenue for it, I suppose, that would be better than what has been available here, but I just don’t know the details, and wouldn’t care to speculate!”
I’m not talking about MEN entertaining MEN, DKM! I’m talking about MEN entertaining WOMEN.
Obviously, if a man cheats on his wife he must be unable to control his urges for the female form and should be shuttled off to a House of Entertainment where he can do nothing but learn how to please dozens of them a day! Right?
Earlier you said that if a woman didn’t live with her family until marriage, the only place for her was in a house of prostitution. I’m glad to see that you’re modifying your position, even a tiny bit, in favor of not making complete nonsense. Unless you’re moving the goalposts…
Oh huh, Brandon 2.0. How many partners does it take before a woman is “compulsively and recklessly hypersexual”? What constitutes the compulsion? If they are, for instance, going on a few one-night stands, how is this reckless?
But you just said that if a woman does really well, financially, out of prostitution, she could “marry up:”
Why would she do this, if she is unsuited to a longterm relationship?
Meller, you don’t personally know any sex workers, do you? That’s actually pretty rare for an involved libertarian, even a conservative one. More evidence that your libertarianism doesn’t consist of actually doing libertarian anything. They are not “hypersexual women” they are women who have a job. Normal women. Human women. Often feminist women. Often wonderful mothers – and a child doesn’t need to know his mom’s a sex worker, or even have to know more about sex than any other kid. A husband or partner’s jealousy is their own business, and their own matter.
Unless you’re a TOTAL ASSHOLE.
Molly Ren–December 3, 2011 @ I don’t see any need for “houses of Entertainment” for men, if that answers your question. Promiscuous men don’t disrupt society the way promiscous women can and do!
There MAY be Houses of GAY entertainment, when one considers the habit of gay-male “cruising” and the enormous risks associated with this (Can you spell AIDS) but that is a different story, for different people, and different circumstances.
Also there are questions of e.g. gay “marriage” involved, although I have no idea about the ramifications here.
I’m compulsively and recklessly hypersexual (unless by recklessly you mean unsafe. I’m very careful about using birth control and barriers to prevent pregnancy and disease) and also quite suited to loving, committed monogamous relationships. Would you force me into your House of Male Entertainment against my will?
VoiP, I thought in Mellerland the sex workers couldn’t have children. Meller, I know you’re typing this out one-handed, but do try to be consistent.
Hahahahaha. He really has no idea that normal women can want sex, and that heterosexual sex is possible outside a context of possession, does he?
My gf was watching a documentary about sex workers on Friday night: one of them in Sydney has organised an outreach program to educate sex workers on helping clients who are disabled, – That’s a friend of a friend. A wonderful person :)
Why not? Give us an example of how female promiscuity disrupts society. Of course, you’ll have to define “promiscuity” first…
Awww. The world outside DKM’s head is getting better every day!
Hi there, double standard. Good to see you, it’s been a while.
At least Mellertoad is upfront with his vile views.