Blog post on the epidemic of forced celibacy in males

Post Reply New Topic

okay, then you can include them in our discussion. i don't mind adding their experiences too. it's just that 90% of prostitutes are women, and i do not know anything about the male prostitutes. it would be great if you offered some information about them or could express an opinion about them. i'm sure they don't have it easy either.

I really shouldn't add another page to this thread by posting here again but I have to say that's really funny. It's just the right thing right here right now.

i guess they had their reasons:

"Because of the correlation between drinking and domestic violence—many drunken husbands abused family members—the temperance movement existed alongside various women's rights and other movements, including the Progressive movement, and often the same activists were involved in all of the above. Many notable voices of the time, ranging from Lucy Webb Hayes to Susan B. Anthony, were active in the movement. In Canada, Nellie McClung was a longstanding advocate of temperance. As with most social movements, there was a gamut of activists running from violent (Carrie Nation) to mild (Neal S. Dow)."

Poor Tweety....

So, I guess, that if I stop seeing prostitutes, women will call me a "Good Man" and that I am a shining example of what they want a man to be: feminist compliant.

Like the Americans said, "The only good Indians are the dead ones", and in this case, "The only good men are the ones that will bow down to womanhood".

All you are doing is replacing the ill behaviour of man with the ill behaviour of women. I've seen the sorts, staggering out of bars blind drunk at 2am at the weekends, getting their knickers down and peeing in the streets.

In some cases perhaps, regarding the preference for prostitutes and not caring about relationships anymore, especially from guys who never had one, which is like becoming a replacement for the real one, however, I don't see that to be always the case.


well, of course, a guy would have to hide that aspect of his life if it isn't convenient to expose that, I mean I could very well say that I had a sexual relationship before, and hide the small detail that she happened to be a prostitute, or I could say I am a virgin (which I really don't know if I can be considered or not), is it deception? Yes. Would it be smart and convenient to tell the truth knowing or projecting that she would reject me because of that? No.

In any case, relationships are built on some level of deception anyway, from what I gather, people, generally, impress or try to impress their potential partner by showing themselves to be better than what they really are, so there isn't much of honesty there, and yeah, pretty much they start to really know each other well, after getting married, and that seems extremely common. And I doubt such deception is that harmful, considering health is good, it seems it depends on other circumstances.

And believe some women wouldn't mind a man having been with a prostitute before, depending on the reason.

Yes, but you're wrong. There is NOTHING patriarchal about allowing a woman the right to decide who has access to her body, and under what terms. Do you understand what patriarchy is?


As I've already stated, I don't think the government is now winning - or will it EVER win - the "War on Drugs" - drugs should be legalized. But you've treated those statements like every othher statement that doesn't support your perspective: you ignore it.



WHY DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS AGAIN? The current system does not function adequately - it needs a COMPREHENSIVE overhaul. Please stop repeating the same flawed, pointless conclusions.



See comment above.



Right back to you, @hyperlexian.



I haven't brought up anything about you that you haven't freely volunteered in the forum. And I've brought the issue up to illustrate the hypocrisy in your own attitudes. If you think that constitutes taking the moral high ground - which you clearly object to - then I hope you're ready to enjoy a nice big dose of your own medicine. How's that working for ya?



Now you want to defend statements about what EVERY WOMAN will find acceptable or not in a mate? Your grandiosity knows no bounds.

do you understand what patriarchal means? i am not wrong, i just disagree with you.

although you ignore all of the quotes i present, i care just enough to quote other people who actually agree that prostitution is a form of patriarchal control:







i don't just pull phrases and opinions out of my arse. i conduct research and base my opinions on published information. the same cannot be said for your arguments.


i don't agree with the legalization of hard drugs, and apparently most of the world agrees, because they are illegal almost everywhere. i am now thinking that your argument has nothing to do with feminism at all, and everything to do with libertarianism. please don't pretend you have women's best interests in mind, because you clearly are speaking from a whole different perspective.

p.s. i ignore nonsense.


you keep also drawing flawed, pointless conclusions. do you understand that it is a difference of opinion? well, sort of... at least my opinion has some facts to back it up. you introduced one, single, flawed study to support your side... AND I CAN YELL TOO!


nastyyyyyy. you don't actually have any moral high ground, so it's sort of silly for you to say that. i am not hypocritical at all... you think what i did was wrong, but not what men do with prostitutes? that takes quite a hypocritical leap.

i don't compare those things side by side, because they are not the same act. sex outside of a relationship is not the same as prostitution, so it is not hypocritical to find one acceptable and not the other. many reasonable people agree with that.

sorry, but your logic fails. and you took the low road...


i didn't say EVERY WOMAN, now did i? are you actually reading what i write, or are you just drawing random conclusions because you have already pigeonholed me? how about taking the time to go back and actually read what i wrote instead of putting words in my mouth? here's a refresher for you, but i'm sure you won't bother to actually read it...

Actually, @hyperlexian, you are a hypocrite - and you're wrong. You have ignored every bit of evidence that every poster has provided that doesn't support your perspective. (And no, you clearly don't understand what the term patriarchy refers to, as you want to codify your moral view in an effort to assert your authority over women, and the decisions they make about their own bodies - because you know better than they do. )

You're going to lecture me about reading what you write? Let me see now, you were so interested in objective information that refutes your perspective that you....anyone, anyone? That you chose to ignore it when I posted it. (Or maybe you have some spinny, b.s. explanation for failing to recognize information I posted when posted by another member?) You've ignored the posts of people who stated real facts about the state of prostitution in Canada and New Zealand - again, because they don't support your narrow view of the subject. Don't blame me @hyperlexian - you pigeonholed yourself - by choosing to stay ignorant of oh, I don't know, the facts that you're so in love with.

And you may ignore nonsense - but clearly you have no such prohibition on posting it. Too bad. You're doing so much more harm than good here. Do I understand a difference of opinion? Yes - do you understand that your opinion is just that? Its not gospel, its not an edict, and it sure as hell isn't a fact. You have been shoving your opinion down everyone's throat and acting as though your word is the last word. Sorry, its not. And yes, you've judged, and you've condescended, and you've been sarcastic, and you've gotten personal, and you've acted as though your opinion is untouchable because you were the only one considering the best interests of the women involved. I hope that does taste bitter to you - it should. How dare you believe you're the only one who can offer a solution to any problem? Really, who died and left you in charge of what's best for anyone? And you claim I took the low road?

If I understand correctly, I believe that the problem with your position here seems that it leads towards one unique conclusion, misoginy (misoginy, according to your ideology), and this is not the only problem or cause, but other issues as well, social pressure, would be one, and longing for companionship, and I can say that few men who see a prostitute, have a liberal mentality regarding sexuality, such as some women have a more liberal mentality about sexuality, thus not having much of a moral issue with it, while others may find that morally objectionable or for any other reason, and may prefer celibacy than seeing a prostitute. The issue is that I tend to find this thinking, a black and white approach, therefore I find it questionable. While this is true in many cases, it doesn't mean all men have that attitude.

-----------------------

The problem with this thread is that we are crossing between different ideologies and perspectives about an issue, I get your position and you defend it, but others disagree, even other feminists disagree with your position, as well as other people agree with your position, even comming from different angles. So much that this thread is not really going anywhere, and it won't do anything, obviously won't change anybody's minds, especially if they are passionate about their views. Heck! I think I'm partly regreting posting here in the first place, because it leads to nowhere, on the other hand, another part of me is curious.

Screw Tweety!

uh, no. i'm not a hypocrite. you calling me one doesn't make it true. there is absolutely nothing hypocritical about my viewpoint. it just doesn't fit within your morality. but i would say that you have been hypocritical. we can keep arguing this way if you like, but i am not sure what your point is. you have no more right to codify your point of view than i do, last i checked...

i do understand what patriarchy means, but i don't think you truly understand what it entails. would you like some more definitions?


i didn't ignore that study - i responded to your post at the time. maybe you didn't read my reply? which would be exactly what i am accusing you of. i also responded when another member posted it, but all the information i had to go on was the quote he used. i couldn't go to the link on my phone.

then, you went batshit.

you accused me of saying things i did not say... so that would imply that you did not read what i wrote.

you also did not address the research i presented, perhaps because you could not refute it. so now you turn to personal insults. you provided 1 single piece of evidence, which was criticized for its lack of neutrality. at any time, you could have presented more, but instead you attacked me. basen on what you provided, there's not much evidence on your side. well, it is sort of inevitable, if you cannot support your side, that you would attack me on a lower, meaner level. a very immature debate technique. are you going to call me a stupid poopypants next?

i am not ignorant, and i don't really get why you want to make it so personal. have you ever debated before, and if so, do you comprehend that a difference of opinion does not mean that others are wrong? has anyone ever disagreed with you, or are people so accustomed to your bullying that they dare not stand up to you?


are you seriously accusing me of doing these things to you, those same things you have been doing to me? wow. that is seriously humorous. my opinion is an opinion, and i happen to also have facts to back it up. those are two separate items. opinion... and facts. you could have have chosen to take the same approach, and you did not. this is how a good debate is performed. maybe you can improve with practice.

please note that i've consented some possibilities for the other side, but you have not done the same. which would be an example of you saying that your own side is untouchable.

yes, i have judged people, and so have you. yes, i have condescended people, and so have you.

i don't understand why YOU should have the god-given right to decide what is best for society or for women either. really, nobody appointed you to that job.

you made this personal with me, and all i have is throw back the crap you chucked at me. i will continue to return the volley as long as you keep doing that. and yes, you took the low road by attacking me personally. that was uncalled for and bad debate form.

funny, but i have no bitterness at all. you really don't know me.


and no, you are NOT a worthy adversary.

Normally popcorn would be the thing here, but I've been eating my lunch and drinking coffee.

the men who visit prostitutes may have a liberal mentality. i honestly really don't know. some studies have hinted that visiting prostitutes may actually change a man's perspective about women and sexuality, but i don't think anyone has ever done a comprehensive before-and-after study on that. a large number of men who frequent prostitutes do have a misogynistic attitude, but i do not know if that arose before or after they started buying sex.

i think that there are definitely multiple reasons why men see prostitutes, and it would be hard to categorize them simply. there is some idea out there that men's reasons have changed throughout history and across cultures, which leads me to believe it is a fluid and malleable occurrence, and subject to an each society's mores.

some researchers are looking into this in-depth, because they know that understanding why men choose to do this would shed some light on how to change the situation. i do believe in providing counselling, education or therapy for men who use prostitutes, so that they are not left out in the cold.


absolutely, i don't think that i could actually convince someone of the exact opposite viewpoint to come over to my side, nor could they convince me. but a debate works a lot better if people disagree, and there have been many, many perspectives on this thread. it's true that feminists don't have one single idea on this (i think i said that a couple of pages back lol), or even on any other single issue. however, the silent lurkers on the fence may be interested in the debate too, and well-formed arguments from both sides can go very far in informing them.

Good luck ruling the world, @hyperlexian.

thank you. i am still working out a slogan.