Keep on rocking in the free world…

Classic video showing the premise of this essay. A few guys went around their high school and got several women to sign a petition to “end women’s suffrage.” This was so annoying that I could not even laugh. I like a good joke as much as anyone else, but the thought that these same women will have the right to choose the leader of the United States in 2008 is rather disturbing.

As you should be able to see from my 333 post, when I used the word whore, I put the meaning implied by DICK and Sonyad in brackets. That being, a women who will have sex with any man. Financials do not come into this definition. A more appropriate word may be skanky ho, as this focusses more on the promiscuous aspect without the exchange of money being involved.

Before you say that Dick and the other men here are not using the word ‘whore’ in a primarily derogatory sense without literally meaning a woman will only have sex in exchange for material goods, I beg to differ. I believe they are simply using the term to state that women are cheap, trashy, of loose morals and basically are skanks. I do not believe that they simply mean that a woman will only have intercourse if she gets something material out of it, whether that be $, a ring or a house. And even if they are saying that, at the end of the day, they are implying that women are still nothing but sluts who are basically incapable of feeling a selfless and loving emotion for a man.

Therefore, as I understand it, many men on this site like to call women whores in the sense that they think all women are simply promiscuous sluts (forget payment in this equation). This interpretation of women as whores/sluts IS incompatible with the statement/belief (made by another poster, not me - that men cannot get laid without paying for it). Because it basically defines women as willing to get fucked by any man without having to take a monetary payment into consideration.

btw, I find your characterisation of me as a bimbo who obtains knowledge only from google as extremely presumptious and rude.

Anon, you are being either silly or stupid, or you are ill-educated at logic. I’ve been tempted to comment before, but have forgone the opportunity.

1. I don’t think all women are whores.
2. Let’s pretend Sony actually did say everything you said he did and meant it the way you said he did.
3. You say he said ‘all women are whores’.

You then say that this is contradictory with the statement “many men cannot get laid without paying for it”.

Is English your native language?

I’m serious.

Do you know what the word ‘whore’ means?

It’s not a general term of abuse for women, it means prostitute: specifically a lower-class prostitute who accepts sex for money.

So you are saying that the statements “all women accept sex for money” and “many men cannot get laid without paying for it” are incompatible.

Again, I must ask, are you native to planet Earth? Did both the language of Shakespeare and logic escape you?

In the end, it’s all about the probably apocryphal anecdote involving [Winston] Churchill and a socialite, and I bet you didn’t even get that that’s what Dick was referring to.

Please, please, buy a dictionary. A dead tree one. I’m totally serious. The internet is no substitute for books and learning. Google is no substitute for knowledge.

-wolfe

How can many men not getting laid being unwilling/unable to pay for it equate that not all women being whores?

Sonyad, it is illogical and a contradiction of your statement, for you to classify all women as whores (meaning all women would be willing to have sex with any man) and then state that many men cannot get laid without paying for it.

For if all women are whores, how can any man not get laid whenever he wants to?

I said what? where?

Biff said:

No it don’t literally assume nothing, you assume and make an ass out of yourself. Women don’t always spread for any man. There are many men who never get laid yet any woman can get laid.

-I don’t know about that one Biff, I have seen some pretty HUGE women since many women are markedly more obese then men. I don’t think there’s enough alcohol on this planet to cause me to fuck them.-

Thanks, Luka. I appreciate you taking the time to respond in detail. Yah, I don’t fully agree with your views, and I still think you’re being a bit irrational, but I can appreciate *why* now, and I can’t condemn you for it.

I do strenuously disagree with this:

On the other hand, I do also hold the view that in the long term, it is cruel to have a child that you do not want and that you cannot support emotionally or financially than it is to have that child aborted. The effects are a lot more painful for the child in the long-term - and in this world we could do without more neglected and unwanted children. Maybe that view is warped, I don’t know, it it is a consideration I have had for a while…

I assume you mean ‘crueler’. With that in mind, I’ve this to say. It’s not the Victorian era. Since the 1960’s (at least, if not well before then), loving families have been available to adopt unwanted babies. I grew up in a family with one adopted child. (Could have been me!). No real difference. My gf was adopted. Again, no real difference in love/being raised.

On the plus side, I think we at least can agree that abortion as a method of birth control is repulsive and irresponsible in the extreme.

-wolfe

Wolfe,

I don’t really understand from what angle you are coming from here. I will admit the use of the word privilege was not a very good choice in my sentence you cited above, but if I came across cold in my posts above it was because I was trying to avoid a lengthy debate into the morals of abortion here. I am going to post the following only because I want to clarify your concerns.

I brought up the issue of abortion because I am unsettled by the attitude of feminists which seem to think that ‘abortion is a right’. To me this is a very blase viewpoint on a delicate issue.

I think it is a very cold attitude to view abortion as a ‘right’ because first, it doesn’t take into account the fact that the fetus is a human life and ignores the seriousness of the decision to abort a potential child. Second, abortion is NOT a form of contraception and should not be viewed in this way.

I would say, on the other hand, that the freedom to choose whether or not to have an abortion could be considered a right - not that abortion is a right in itself.

Like I said before I am pro-choice but that does not mean I condone abortions nor condemn them either. I would say that I am uncomfortable about them in general. Perhaps the better word is ‘undecided’ as I agree and disagree with both sides of the debate on several issues.

Personally, I would prefer if women were more careful and took more responsibility over their own bodies (i.e. they took more care over their contraception and prevention methods) so that they would not have to resort to abortions in the first place. I put the onus on women taking the responsibility because it is the woman who falls pregnant not the man and it is the woman who has a means other than the condom to prevent pregnancy (although this might change in the future with the male pill etc).

On the other hand, I do also hold the view that in the long term, it is cruel to have a child that you do not want and that you cannot support emotionally or financially than it is to have that child aborted. The effects are a lot more painful for the child in the long-term - and in this world we could do without more neglected and unwanted children. Maybe that view is warped, I don’t know, it it is a consideration I have had for a while…

To be honest, if my views appear irrational it would be because I see both sides of the issue and agree in part with both. I haven’t yet fully formed my own idea of where I stand on this because it is a subject that is both delicate and complex. That said, I still would like to see more women viewing abortion as a last resort (in the case that they really could not afford to keep the child financially and so on) rather than another form of contraception; I would like more women to take better care over contraception so as to not put themselves in such a horrible situation in the first place.

You may disagree or be uncomfortable with my views, but that is what they are at the moment.

Luka,

I don’t like the idea of abortion being spoken of as a ‘right’ that every woman should have (I would rather suggest it was a privilege

Rampaging abortion debates are not what we need here (so let’s be careful in this quagmire). That said, I am troubled by your views. They seem irrational at best.

I assume we are talking of the vast majority of pregnancy terminations occurring after 1 month but before the third trimester. Post-22nd week week (or more accurately, post-viability terminations, are disturbing, but lets leave that out of it for the moment).

Let’s leave aside the cases of rape, incest, horrible deformity, or the mother’s physical health being in danger. (Those exist, but should be considered as a separate issue).

1. Either the fetus is human life or the fetus isn’t. (Yes/no).

2. Either human life (especially defenceless human life) is worthy of protection or it isn’t. (Yes/no).

Assuming that one of the answers to the above two questions is “no”, then there should be no issue with abortions. They would be entirely a woman’s choice, though she might have to find a willing practitioner.

In your case, you seem to attempt to take a ground which does not appear to make sense to me. Indeed, I find it disturbing, in that you seem to recognize hazily the pro-life view of the unborn child as being at least more important than a tumour [I'll throw in a bit of their terminology now after very carefully using pro-choice terminology above], but give it quite short shrift.

Regards,
-wolfe

Good observation, sonyad. I agree.

To abort the child conceived on the outside? Just some more stupid shit to throw money on, cause it’s just such a big deal to drive the lady to the nearest ‘clinic’ under escort.

It being such an often occurence you can see how it warants insane amounts of your tax dollars to fund abortion clinics on the inside for maybe 1 or 2 abortions per jail per year.

There is a report going around (a gender shadow report on ‘women’s human rights in the US’) by the feminists which try and push the idea that female prison inmates should have the ‘right to have access to abortion clinics’ ….hmmmm? Can anybody else spot something strange about this idea?

Having the ability and choice to elude the consequences of some particular actions of one’s, not just the initial choice of whether to go through with the ‘deed’ or not, is not tantamount to not having wronged in the first place.

However, I understand your stance on the use of contraceptives as mitigating circumstances on the part of some female philanderers all the while only to have their existance and nonuse (for whatever unreasonable, stupid and irrelevant reasons) as aggravating circumstances for other female philanderers. It just shifts the blame among female philanderers, really.

This said, the consequences of cheating on behalf of a man and a woman are still not on par. All contraceptives do is put a ‘potentially physically’ in front of the verb ‘betrayed’. The entities that man and women respectively potentially physically betray when philandering are still disproportionate and the harm done when we’ve passed from ‘potentially’ to ‘actually’ is as well. That said, it does not seem unreasonable to state that cheating is morally as wrong for both sexes.

Also, I find that many women mistakenly (purposely?) label abortion as a form of contraception, when it is so clearly not. This may be a form of feminist indoctrination through popular culture and specifically the media.

It is (should be), in fact, exactly what you stated, Luka. A last resort option available for the specific end to elude/avoid the consequences of one’s (or of the perpetrator’s actions in case of veritable rape, not to say rape is nonexistant or to condone it) sexual intercourse.

Let us not kid ourselves now that the, oh, so many abortions carried out each and every single day worldwide are all the result of various forms of rape or statistically HORRIDLY INEFFECTIVE contraceptive methods. They are mostly the result of choices. Even when it’s the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. time. They really are mostly the result of uncoerced, freewilled, well informed and inexplicable choices. Both at time of conception and of ‘termination’.

Apparently many women don’t believe in cause and effect, prevention, foresight or ‘family planning’ (or any long term planning - abortion is not family planning - it is it’s absence or failure - except in the warped minds of feminists) or wisdom. Either that or, more likely, these concepts are entirely foreign to their minds.

Sonyad I don’t agree with all you have posted here but it has given me pause to think.

I know this is a bit off on a tangent but there are two thoughts related to this that strike me as hypocritical (on the side of the woman).

Of course the pill is a means for women to freely have extramartial affairs or act promiscuous with smaller danger of getting pregnant. With this in mind, the idea that wolfe put forward that female promiscuity is worse (i.e the cheating woman could perform the ‘ultimate act of betrayal’ by having a child from another man and having her spouse raise that child and provide for it ) does not hold as much water. As women do have the choice of whether or not she could get pregnant she could have relations with another man without that consequence ever occuring. In that respect her cheating ways are no more worse than her male counterpart.

That said, I would also put forward that I find some women to be largely irresponsible with regards to contraception. Of course accidents do happen. However women have been known to ‘ooops forget the pill’ (accidently on purpose, of course) in order to keep a man or to improve the relationship (yes silly women like this do exist) … there are women who have children for many numbers of selfish and stupid reasons.

Also there is a recent thought that I have been having about the attitudes of some women with regards to abortion. My stance on abortion is pro-choice but at the same time I feel that it is something that shouldn’t be taken lightly. I don’t like the idea of abortion being spoken of as a ‘right’ that every woman should have (I would rather suggest it was a privilege and at very least - the last resort) anyway, that is another topic to discuss elsewhere…

back on the issue.. I find it hypocritical how some women are against abortion but then don’t take the necessary precautions to ensure they don’t fall pregnant. Those teen mothers who keep their children even though they can barely afford them because they think it wrong to abort irritate me for that very reason. The women who manage to get themselves pregnant with another man whilst they are having an affair is just as stupid. With all the precautions around that woman can use there is no excuse for a woman falling pregnant whilst having an affair - if she does then she is worse than a cheating man. In this case only I will agree that a cheating woman is worse than a cheating man.

I know that some women will say ‘ what about the cheating man who had an affair and got another woman pregnant - isn’t he bad for doing that?’ Yes he is. However, the woman he was with must take responsibility for her own body - it is only her who can get pregnant. If she is having an affair with a married man (for example) and is not taking the pill correctly fall pregnant, and then decides to keep the child because ‘abortion is so wrong’ she is a complete and utter hypocrite.

Advice for women out there who are anti-abortion: if abortion is not an option for you and you cannot afford the child yourself - take extra care over your contraception or don’t have sex at all.

There you go. In your eyes example of whoring. Just got myself a bottle of pepsi from the fridge before I’m done respoding to your post and I’m off to the local police precinct to pick up my criminal record (it’s empty).

On the label, Christina Aguilera, in a hideous little bra that hopelessly tries to fool us men into thinking it’s witholding more than it really is, and a face to put a bull off hoplessly trying to give pepsi their money’s worth through ‘endorsing’ they magic elixir (actually blatantly present her mutilated countenance).

She actually looked decent (as in NOT FUCKING HIDEOUS) before she started her ‘career’ and chose her latest ‘look’ according to her female tastes and standards for womanly beauty. Now she looks like a used, tired little whore that’s aged 15 in 2 and .

You see? Can’t have a drink without experienceing some female whorishness. Not that I complain though, except for when women are trying to give us men inverted errections by deciding and choosing for their cute little empowered selve if/when/how to have esthetic improvements through surgery, whether to shave their eyebrows, whether to have botulism toxin injected, how to clothe themselves, how to behave, act, walk, etc. Nausea will set in if I don’t remove that blasted label soon.

I wrote so much I forgot some of the points you made that I originally intended to respond to.

About sleeping around when not commited through wedlock (before the law, before God, both - whichever you prefer) (not an extramarital affair then) and it’s really not that big a deal. A woman sleeping around when supposedly commited to her lover is, in principle, only and just as bad as her supposedly commited lover cheating on her. It’s all cheating, baby. But when the belly starts going up towards the chin and we step out of theory and principle and on to hard, cold, harsh reality, it’s another can of worms, leaches if the kid was fathered by a third party. Abortion and other BS, don’t get me started on that shit.

However, if you do wish to imply lesser guilt on the man by inferring it’s in his biological nature to be a cheat, than you’re entirely entitled to your opinion as long as you not spread your misinformation as knowledge, wisdom or some such and remove thyself and your blatant feminist misandry from this site as men, unlike feminists, will not bend principles so as to obtain rights (deserved or otherwise but mostly otherwise in their case) while at the same time shunning obligations and responsabilties that rightfully come with those privileges.

Being a whore and enjoying sex are two different things. Not that they neccessarily exclude each other.
By holes in your counter-argument I mean this closing statement:

So, if you say that many men can’t get laid (without paying for it) then I guess not all women are whores

How can many men not getting laid being unwilling/unable to pay for it equate that not all women being whores?

For example, if I were to go and seek sex for money right now and find a whore that’s just to ‘dear’ for my pocket, or simply unwilling to have any with me, does that make her any less of a whore?

Or if I attempt to coerce a prostitute into having sex with me ‘moca’ (for free) and fail, does that make her any less of a whore? These are but 2 angles from which the silogism is flawed and unsound.

Indeed, I’ve already stated my personal opinion that not all are, not even most are. From my pov, this is established. However, the closing statement you made does not make sense to me and does not seem like a proper argument in support to your stance on Dick’s (really, nu pun intended) statement.

Also, the word ‘whore’ does not mean just prostitute, per se. It can also mean a promiscuous or immoral woman (one of Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary’s definitions of the word; I see it is fashionable with other posters here). One that sleeps around. Precisely the kind of female philandery (as Wolfe put it first) you talk about in your latest counter-argument to Dick’s statement.

Also, please note the old latin law dictone mater, certus, pater incertus before equating men and women cheating (you see, even law comes to the aid of Dick and fundamental, pure, unadulterated law at that, not the pissass neomarxist liberal shit bills you see passing - or trying to - these days throughout the world on such ‘controversial’ matters as: euthanasia, concealed carry permits, guns, guns for all - criminals, legally and formerly insane, etc. - , gay marriage with children, legalised use of certain ‘light’ drugs, and so on and so forth - do note I have not mentioned legalised prostitution seeing as how I’m not hypocrite and all nor do I condone the death penalty).

What this equates to is that when a woman has an extramarital affair she is really or potentially betraying the family unit (and comprimising the single most important contribution she can make towards it, again this does not exclude or deny other contributions women make) whereas when a man has one, he is only betraying his spouse, and in principle at that.

If women are unwilling to provide that then, really, what use are they to the family unit? For that matter, what use is the family unit altogether as it only really benefits women and children. All other contributions women can make are neglijable by comparison as well as relative to what the man can most likely do for himself (men are better than women) without having to relent to the restrictions of freedoms (on anything from expressing his sexuality to what to spend his money on, and how much of it at that, etc.) that is marriage nor put up (in too many cases of newly weds) with a stinking pile of BS his spouse will likely do to/throw at him over the years.

Men cannot bear their own kids. Women however can force a bastard on a man and suck him dry of most his worldly posessions and practically legally enslave him for 18 (21?) years even when it is a known fact (to the law, I mean, anything else does not matter) that it’s not the ‘fruit’ of his loins. Or so I understood it is the case in countries where members like Christian J lives.

If that doesn’t say it all, I don’t know what does. Or is it that you actually condone whoring but not calling things by their name or women on their philandering, when they do it?

sonyad said:

[...] that all women are whores [...] implies they will have sex with any man without question

A whore is not someone (actually, as far as I know, the word refers specifically to women, anyway…) who will have sex with any man without question. You are stretching the meaning of words to cover holes in your counterargument.

Maybe whores are different in Romania, I really don’t think I’m stretching the meaning of the word, though possibly exaggerating. Obviously soliciting does involve asking questions, to determine potential customer interest and then along the lines of finding out exactly what the man would want to do.

What holes do you see in my counter-argument?

While I myself don’t agree with the absolute quality of the statement Dick made, Good. you simply cannot deny that a hell of a lot of women are whores of some form to some degree.

Sure, I wont deny women enjoy sex. What’s wrong with that? I would have thought you’d be complaining more if they didn’t, as Diamatik seems to think.

Personally, I think the quantity of sleeping around depends on age, not because the younger you are, the more interest you can attract, because I’m 31 and have no problems in that area, but rather because the older you get, the less one nighters you wish to have because unless you can’t keep your eyes off each other, it just doesn’t seem worth the hassle.

Also Sonyad, so what if women sleep around? Men do it and if women didn’t, then more men would need to visit a prostitute and pay for it, so I don’t even know why you are complaining. Perhaps you are confusing cheating with whorishness?

Also, I don’t think the ‘quality’ of being a whore is neccessarily permanent. A woman might change for better or worse throughout her life. Perhaps even repeatedly.

What about men? Can they ever be anything but permanent sluts? It would take a rare man intend to subvert his biology.

[...] that all women are whores [...] implies they will have sex with any man without question

A whore is not someone (actually, as far as I know, the word refers specifically to women, anyway…) who will have sex with any man without question. You are stretching the meaning of words to cover holes in your counterargument.

While I myself don’t agree with the absolute quality of the statement Dick made, you simply cannot deny that a hell of a lot of women are whores of some form to some degree. Even to say most are seems a bit of a stretch, but who can know for a fact?

Also, I don’t think the ‘quality’ of being a whore is neccessarily permanent. A woman might change for better or worse throughout her life. Perhaps even repeatedly.

I’ve seen it happen, anyway. Admitedly it was because of strong and dedicated male leadership and influence that it was for the better. And I’m not implying violence here, if that’s what you nimble little mind jumped to, verbal or otherwise. Just dedication to put up with stupid or nasty shit and hysteria, even the resolve to have her interned in a withdrawal clinic.