Absolute balderdash on all counts. Umpteen examples of DEREGULATION resulting in economic collapse exist for anyone with an open mind to read and examine the cause and effect. The GOP Contract ON America was deregulation writ large and gave us he collapse of Enron and Arthur Anderson plus a host of other major corporations. It was GOP Deregulation of Glass-Steagall that was the underlying cause of the 2008 economic collapse. The bogosity of "free markets" has cost millions of hardworking Americans their jobs and their futures. Not sure what "home country" you are referring to but America was not an "empty desert". It was a continent that was sparsely populated and it took hundreds of years from the first settlers arriving in 1607 to even achieve the status of a nation and another hundred after that to achieve any degree of "prosperity". It was really only in the last 70 years that the middle class achieved any degree of "prosperity" and for the last 3 decades that has been eroding rather than growing. Looks like yet another strike out for this latest deflection of yours.
Everything above happened because of government intervention. On a free market, a collapse means the company in question was providing good enough services. I cannot discuss US domestic policies since I am not American, but what I can say is that only force capable of destroying jobs and causing markets to fail is the government. And what enabled that growth? And what force helped people to rise from poverty?
Yes, "whore-ishness" is a misogynistic word....it has no relationship to women getting abortions unless you think women getting abortions are all whores...which they're not.....and it's misogynistic to think they are..
"Whore-ishness" has nothing to do with women having abortions and that is why I never said it has. What I did say, however, was that whore-ishness plays a vital role in what leads to women having abortions. If you associate the term "whore-ishness" with women, you are the sexist. I use the word "whore-ishness" to describe the kind of hedonistically decadent behaviour young men and women of today engage in. It is an obvious effect of the over-sexualisation of society and with contraceptives, abortions and the normalisation of "one-night-stands", there are very few - not so say none - incentives for anyone to be responsible for their actions and it even gives men an excuse to treat women as objects because society says it is OK and the contraceptives make it possible for him to use her as a toy to satisfy his lust. I think that contraceptives, abortion and sexual liberalism - quite sadly - has had an especially negative effect on women. Although they were introduced with good intentions, the result has been overwhelmingly bad. As a man, I can only speak from the perspective of a man and from this side of the grass, it seems to me as if women are not treated with the respect they deserve and I trace this back to the sexual revolution. I am not blaming any of the genders for anything, I am only criticising contemporary culture.
. The word "whore" has generally and historically been meant to refer to women. You ARE saying that "whore-ishness" leads to abortion. .... that's wrong, the only thing that leads to abortion is an unwanted pregnancy. A woman only needs to have sex once to get pregnant. But that aside, women who have lots of sex are not "whores"....they are humans. . ...and have ALWAYS engaged in... Abortion is a responsible action when one does not want a kid. ...and contraceptives make it possible for women to use men as toys to satisfy their lust....ya, so? Only in the eyes of some....many women found that contraceptives, abortion and sexual liberalism gave them a great life....the same freedom men always had... No, it hasn't. For many women the results were great. Although I realize there are some people who think women having the same freedom men have always had is a bad thing... I put the blame where it belongs, square on the shoulders of men who don't respect women. It isn't contemporary, it's always been there...only now women can do as they please, too.....and that does bother some people
A man can be a "whore" too and besides, I did not even attribute it to any of the genders, but to society. And what leads to an unwanted pregnancy? Abortion is the method, an unwanted pregnancy is the cause and the root is whore-ishness. Not always, but way too often to be rarely. Yes and this is why women are particularly vulnetable and biggest victims of sexual liberalism. It is important to be cautious when it comes to sex and try to take on whatever means it takes to avoid pregnancy if one is only looking for pleasure and not a family. Men who have lots of sex are whores. Women who have lots of sex are whores. It is not very optimal for a society to allow lust run loose. We need norms that restrict this and encourage the two genders to treat each other with respect. As it stands now, women have lost their true value in tne eyes of men because the relaxed sexual morals we teach give them no reason to care. So, war, rape, murder and pilage is good too because it has "always been around"? No, this is not me being silly or me building a straw man, I am trying to understand what you mean by this utterly random statement. Sure and having your tooth pulled out if you have a severe cavaty is responsible too, but more responsible would be to prevent that scenario ever happening by maintaining good oral hygene, yes? Then the money you don't have to pay the dentist can be invested on something you actually enjoy. I don't understand how you can be so nonchalant about this... Are you a hedonistic nihilist or what is it? This is a lie. Sexual liberalism has opened up and normalised "one night stands" and technology has taken it all even further with services such as Tinder and whatnot (which have been provided because sexual libetalism has created a demand for them). This causes huge inflation on the "mating market" as the supply of sexual partners is nearly endless which, of course, means that a woman's value is decreased to a simple swipe with the finger. At the same time as the woman is devaluated, the competition amongst men becomes a very unnatural one where the "less fortunate" guys lose all their potential partners to "Chad" and this creates resentful, misogynist, porn addicts and fosters psychological illness that, who knows, might even result in suicide or school shootings. Yes, there is a thing called "natural selection", but this sure ain't it. Previously, the "Chads" has been limited by both nature and culture to stick to one partner, but with all the societal comfort, technological advancement and cultural decline of today, "Chad" has no incentives to control himself and his urges by limiting himself to one partner - he is free to be a hedonist. "Chads" will compete with each other on which one of them can woo the highest number of top tier-to-average females and the "Semi-Chads" will monopolise the remaining girls. Of course, the females will think they are valued and pretty because everytime they go out, a new, handsome dude offers them a dance, a drink and some "bedtime". Then, as she gets older and still not in a stable relationship, she will become both desperate and depressed and after a few years, she will be too old for the "Chads" and thheir lads and left all alone. This is just not right. Trolling nature like this will have its consequences and it will hit us bad. Furthermore, the sexual revolution of the 60's has now reached its peak where sex is everywhere - Turn on the tv - sex. Open up a magasine - sex. Play a song - sex. What do young people talk about? Sex. It is literally everywhere and has become so normalised that it is no longer something special. People don't value it because - as mentioned above - technologies such as the Internet has made it easily accessible and contraceptives have made it to something that is neither risky nor costly. Now again, these technologies - as mentioned above - make the "less desireble" even more insecure and many may even feel they do not even need to look for girls as they can find pleasure from porn with only a mouseclick or two. The "less fortunate" girls turn their feelings of abandonment outwards by becoming Feminists and then lonely men reply with the same means and tension and hate is created between many members of the two gender groups. No one can possibly look at this and call it civilised. It depends from which aspect you look at it. What I described above is obviously a not-so-good aspect of it. Of course, but the issue is deeper and more complex than just that and you know it. No, it is not female freedom that bothers me nor is it sexual freedom. Rather is it the structures that the latter give birth to.
...and contradict yourself in the next paragraph... That is in reply to my """A woman only needs to have sex once to get pregnant."" which is a response to you associating abortion with "whore-ishness"...clearly saying women who have abortions are whores.... Hilarious! Uh, how many times a week does a person have to have sex to qualify for your "whoredom"? Is it twice? Three times? OMGAWD! What if they have sex three times in ONE DAY! EEEK!!??!! Is it more whore-ish if they vary any way from the missionary position? How about if they do it WITH THE LIGHTS ON!!!! Shockingly "whore-ish"! ?? Society does not "allow" lust to run loose....it just does as it pleases How do you plan to form this "norm"....with restrictions (regulations)? Calling people who go over your idea of the proper number of times to have sex "whores" is hardly showing respect for any gender and calling women who have abortions whores certainly isn't engendering respect. Women's value is NOT based on what men think. Blarney. NO, me saying humans have always had sex and always will in NO way indicated I thought it was bad or "good"....it's just a fact. You make it sound like there was no sex until the Pill was invented in the 1960's....ridiculous....the Kama Sutra, for example, was written in the 3rd Century... People always knew about sex and always had lots of it.....well, most have You're saying that if one practices oral hygiene they will never get a cavity ...not true. You are saying that if one gets a cavity they should be punished by being forced to bear the pain and never have the tooth removed or the cavity filled. How asinine....and IRresponsible. This is in response to my : ""...and contraceptives make it possible for women to use men as toys to satisfy their lust....ya, so?"" It's easy! Women have the same right to enjoy sex as men do...some use men as sex toys just like men use women as sex toys....if they are consenting adults there is no problem....it's what humans do. Nope, "" Only in the eyes of some....many women found that contraceptives, abortion and sexual liberalism gave them a great life....the same freedom men always had..."" It's true.... Nope, they have always existed. Did you know sex did exist BEFORE you were born? C&P malarkey...blahhhj... Sex has always been everywhere...every where there's humans .....see, long time ago there were no TVs or computers or websites or selfies that put sex right into people's hands and faces and people STILL HAD SEX.....yuppers....sexs was there and humans were doing what humans do. Did I hear a big "Harrumph!" after that That's for individuals to decide for themselves.....but you seem to want restrictions and regulations on people's behavior and on what they see and hear.... ....Gee, is that "Libertarian " ? No, it isn't deeper...I put the blame where it belongs, square on the shoulders of men who don't respect women....it isn't women's responsibility to make men respect them ...people should just respect PEOPLE. WHAT!!! That's all you been going on and on about!!! Well, you'll have to explain that statement but if it's as silly as your other statements on sex, don't bother.
Not at all. It takes two to tango. It is not about number of times, but about number of partners. I don't get it. Methods don't matter. It is all about quantity of partners. So, why did your friends start the 'sexual revolution' then? Answer: Sex was stigmatised and it may be that people were just as promiscuous as now and just did it "backstage", however I doubt it. Prior to the 'sexual revolution', society encouraged monogamy, abstinence and gentleman-ness/ladiness. The 'sexual revolution' aimed at smashing that structure and boy did they succeed! Now, this is a very interesting question and sadly I have no clear answer to it, but to a certain degree it all begins with the parents, I guess. I beg to differ. Thoughts are free and I can view people however I want because thoughts don't hurt anyone. Finally, I never called women who have abortions whores. Depends in what context. Generally speaking, no. On the heterosexual dating-market, definitely. Not an argument. If you see it as neither that nor this, then why on Earth are you even engaging in the debate with me? Are you just playing devil's advocate? If you do not make your opinion clear, I am afraid this conversation will never proceed. You don't say? This is why people decided it was a good idea to put up structures that would fill the function of restraining promiscuity because promiscuity is bad for society. Not at all what I am saying. I am saying that taking caution to minimise the risk of damage is good and to be encouraged. Accidents happen and sometimes even caution can fail. However, it is still a good idea to encourage cautiousness. What you described is not in any ways to be considered an adult behaviour. It does not matter. Overall, it has been very negative, just like I described in my rant in previous post. I never denied it. Re-read what I said. I claimed sexual liberalism has normalised them (as in they used to be frowned upon). Yes. Why are you asking? I did not really expect any enlightened response to my sociological analysis there, but must say I am still quite disappointed with this response. It would have been better if you just ignored it and chose not to quote it all. I spent much energy and put alot of thought and effort into explaining my view and all I get in response is "lalalala, can't hear you, lalala!" Why, yes. But. It. Was. Not. Normalised. My. Dear. Do. You. Understand. What. I. Am. Saying. Better. If. I. Break. It. Up. For. You. Word. By. Word. Or. Will. You. Just. Keep. Repeating. The. Same. Old. Non-response. Of. Sex. Always. Being. A. Part. Of. Human. Nature. Question mark, question mark, question mark. [QUOTE[Did I hear a big "Harrumph!" after that [/QUOTE] No idea what you are trying to imply, sorry. Well, yes. It is very Libertarian because a Stateless society would turn society on its head, forcing new structures to emerge to replace the old government institutions. My speculation is that a stateless society would automatically turn into a more Conservative because without tax-funded kindergartens, tax-funded health care, tax-funded contraceptives etc etc, a whole new set of incentives to avoid certain behaviours would come up and, naturally, family, monogamty, community and co-operation would become desireble. Libertarianism only tells when one can use violence. It does not say much about culture and therefore needs to be completed with other ideas - I am more of a Hoppe:ian and believe Conservativism is the natural outcome of Libertarianism. This does not contradict anything of what I've said though. Jesus. You still don't get it, do you? You are really not just trying to irritate me! You actually don't get it... Wow... Wow... Sexual freedom is a given and inviolable component to the sacred principle of self-ownership. However, when sexual freedom is incorporated into a gigantic machinery of government programmes that disincentivise cautiousness, responsibility and self-respect, it becomes a problem.
No idea what you are trying to imply, sorry. Well, yes. It is very Libertarian because a Stateless society would turn society on its head, forcing new structures to emerge to replace the old government institutions. My speculation is that a stateless society would automatically turn into a more Conservative because without tax-funded kindergartens, tax-funded health care, tax-funded contraceptives etc etc, a whole new set of incentives to avoid certain behaviours would come up and, naturally, family, monogamty, community and co-operation would become desireble. Libertarianism only tells when one can use violence. It does not say much about culture and therefore needs to be completed with other ideas - I am more of a Hoppe:ian and believe Conservativism is the natural outcome of Libertarianism. This does not contradict anything of what I've said though. Jesus. You still don't get it, do you? You are really not just trying to irritate me! You actually don't get it... Wow... Wow... Sexual freedom is a given and inviolable component to the sacred principle of self-ownership. However, when sexual freedom is incorporated into a gigantic machinery of government programmes that disincentivise cautiousness, responsibility and self-respect, it becomes a problem.[/QUOTE] Great response to a bunch of rabbits!
From all that I gather you blame contraception and women having free choice when it comes to sex for "normalizing" sex (we sure wouldn't want sex "normalized" ) and destroying society. Did you have a solution? Like regulations forbidding anything having to do with sex like any media, TV, movies, porno, books or magazines that mention sex, talking about sex, listening to talk about sex? Regulations on how many sex partners people are allowed before they set off your Puritan's Handy Whore-O-Meter....? Regulations forbidding contraceptives (which includes condoms which help prevent STDs but they also promote HAVING SEX!) What's your answer to sex having been going berserk since it was invented in the 1960's..???
For the love of zygotes! No, no, no, no. I am not blaming women for what I perceive to be a very serious problem. I am blaming the sexual revolution for enabling a society where a woman's worth is only to be found in her sexual energy and a man's in his ability to lure them into bed. How many times do I have to explain this? I have noted the problem and I have a solution, but have to admit I am not quite sure how to push it through. What we need is a complete cultural renaissance. Sort of like a "reversed sexual revolution", if you wish. How to pull it through, I don't know. Sorry. Don't be silly. I am not a bloody Liberal, am I? "Regulations", haha, that's so cute. If society changes to one that is not one of whore-ish decadence, the demand for sex in pop culture would vanish and so would the supply. It's the market. It works. Yes and no. Maybe metaphorically speaking as what I am advocating is new sexual norms that stigmatise the act of "sleeping around" in favour of love, compassion, monogamy and companionship. It is culture. It works. You are so adorable...No, just because people are happily married it does not mean the demand for safe sex would vanish. Not everyone is ready to be parents and they too should be allowed to enjoy sex. The demand would give these couples the supply. It's the market it works. I think we should crush its skull, vacuum up the remains, tnrow then in a bin and put that bin on fire. We don't need those 60's ideals if we wish to be happy.
I am sorry I use sarcasm too much and it goes over your head. I will try not to. Using the term whorish women Implies sexual women are cheap ..or as you say whores. People like sex. Women enjoy sex. Man enjoy sex and it doesn’t mean they have to be married. Women and men do not have sex now because they know that abortion is a possibility. That is insulting You named three implications about yourself all very interesting but I am convinced I know the answer .....you weren’t breastfed (sarcasm alert)
You have a very disturbing perception of sex. Society does not enable a woman’s worth by her sexual energy. And you say you are not sexist? And we women are not so stupid that we just get lured into bed..we like sex..I think you might have some sexual hangups but then again I am not your psychiatrist.But it is very odd for a 25-year-old man to want to go back to the 50s
LOL! My sb and I were just talking about this. I can remember being a teenager and thinking I almost had to trick girls into having sex; as if you can just move things along and they won't notice. If only I knew then what I know now! But religion and influences like Victorian morality led to the idea that women are not supposed to like sex. On top of that religion dumps on guilt with all the "sex is for making babies for god" crap. There was one sect of the Shakers that would only have sex through a hole in a sheet? No wonder the men all died off.
Victorians talked morals especially if that would control women but they had as much sex as every other era... Funny how young'uns nowadays think sex wasn't invented until 1960...
Those last two sentences of yours are in response to my : ""What's your answer to sex having been going berserk since it was invented in the 1960's..??? "" You really must hate sex if you want to """crush its skull, vacuum up the remains, tnrow then in a bin and put that bin on fire""" That really isn't a very healthy attitude... What exactly do you term "60's ideals".... ? what were those ideals of long before you were born ??? I'm still not sure what your complaint is but you haven't offered any solutions yet...just a lot of "shoulds" and wishful thinking
Sex without relationship is worthless..... don't think you understand that. It is whorish even for men.
I don't think you understand that "Sex without relationship is worthless" is only your opinion....hardly a fact or a law for everyone....don't think you understand that.
They put modesty cloths on tables so men wouldn't get turned on by the legs. It doesn't get any more anal than that! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_promiscuity I didn't say women didn't like sex. I said they weren't supposed to. High libido in women was viewed as slutty. And it still is by some! I, on the other hand, have made a minor career of learning to spot it.
One of the more striking realizations that I've had over my six-year exploration of human sexuality, is the range of views and feelings about sex, in women. I have talked with perhaps hundreds of escorts and sugar babies. But without any exceptions that I can recall, they all say they have a sex drive more like a man than like most women. They can separate the physical side of sex from the emotional side. They can appreciate sex for the sake of sex. Not all women can do that. Some significant percentage of women, perhaps the majority, can't imagine having sex without emotional involvement. That is why they can't begin to fathom how escorts can do what they do. Some but not most men are the same way. I have come to believe that you want a woman who does not require emotional involvement to enjoy sex. Eventually the honeymoon ends and then you're screwed - or actually, not! I think this is why a lot of men don't get laid much after 5 or 10 year of marriage. Prince Charming turns into a real person, Consequently, Cinderella has a perpetual headache. My ex started cutting me off on our wedding night. No kidding!!! Thank heaven for horny women.
It was the GOP DEREGULATION that CAUSED all of the examples I provided. Unregulated capitalism CAUSES poverty. Look at animals in the wild. Are there animals that live in poverty while others enjoy luxuries? Poverty only exists because of unregulated capitalism. Libertarianism would exacerbate poverty.
The ranting screed above was brought to you by the emotive misuse of the term "whore" which does NOT describe the sexual revolution. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/whore The sexual revolution was NOT about money. No one was paying for sex. The disingenuous and nefarious use of the term exposes the AGENDA that became patently obvious.
Really now? Claiming it is unacceptable to grope and harass women and treat them as objects for our sexual enjoyment is disgusting? You cannot be serious. It does and I just explained to you how in my previous post, but you are yet to address any of the arguments that I made there. It is getting pretty obvious that you are running out of arguments because this nonsense of a response only shows that your repertoire is empty. Especially that last "you is sexist and stuff" shows that you cannot discuss this matter in a serious, adult manner. I already explained how this is a dangerous illusion women have, so I am not going to do it again. Read my rant about sexual liberalism and you will find it. We are doing personal attacks now? And, by the way, who's said anything about going back to the 1950's? Depends who you attribute it to. I am not saying that "being sexual" (whatever the heck that means) makes one a whore. I am saying that excessive sex with multiple partners does. Get it? "Have to be", no. But, it is prefereble for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Of course, couples do not need to put rings on each other's fingers to be happy. I was - perhaps a bit clumsily - using "marriage" as synonymous to "loving and stable relationship". Insulting to whom? Of course contraceptives have created a whole different set of incentives. Denying this would be deluded. It is one thing to claim things have changed to the better, but claiming things haven't changed at all is really ludicrous.
I would answer to this post if there was anything in it to answer. Where are your arguments, sister? I think you are aborting more than you can screw.. Oh, ehrm. Sorry. Biting off more than you can chew. You no longer have any idea what you are talking about and you are starting to get desperate because after using "sexist", "misogynist", "muh, muh, women's rights!" and "lumps of cells are not lives", your repertoire is empty. You do best in just running away. This conversation is over, hun.
