Dangerous Boys

Rob wrote:

On 22 Jun, 07:09, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Mine was an explanation of why the white slave-masters of us all first
tried to use laws to enslave us, not how Democracy then coopted "law"
for its own purposes, which now benefits the Majority.

Unfortunately that explanation doesn't fit the facts. For example,
prostitution was widely legal in the United States until 1910-15 when
it was outlawed largely due to the influence of the Woman's Christian
Temperance Union. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution)
----------------------------
Warning: Wikipedia is a collection of people's OPINIONS.

And laws against prostitution go back as far as the Torah!
In practice they were relegated to neighborhoods where there
was no effective law.

Sure there were a dozen per block in NYC at the turn of the
century. They lived side by side in tiny apartments with the poor
working class, but the price of a prostitute was MUCH less than
today, because those girls were STARVING after paying the rent.
Their pimp was the landlord, and he didn't even defend them!

But THEY had it GOOD by comparison. In earlier times prostitution
was literally a death sentence, and not because of disease but
deprivation. Syphillis wasn't even found in Europe till the 17th
century.

As for the WCTU, The last gasp of religious bigotry was always the
worst. This **** began in the latter 19th century and has persisted
through much of the 20th, till the sixties, and it is STILL being
rolled-back.

Look:
Whether formally illegal or not, women with their own money was
frowned upon by the crown/rich, and those women might be cheated or
practically killed, at WILL! Being unprotected by law is the same
as being assaulted by formal law.


Had! Had. THings are getting better.

Q. Is the reference above to the Man's Christian Temperance Union or
to the Woman's Christian Temperance Union?
---------------------
Neither. Sexuality is becoming more open and acceptable for ALL women,
and that ALWAYS decreases prostitution, because they can't compete
with FREE.


and/or that pampered and
wealthy women seek out casual sex as much as poor, powerless men?

So do rich papmpered men and poor women. Sex is a universal drive.

The point is not about sex but about casual sex. 9 out of 10 women
consider casual sex immoral (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/
4863770.stm).
----------------
Nothing but regurgitation of what they think you want to hear.
In secret they want to **** almost everyone. They prove it at
every turn. My wife of 20 years tells me so, she tells me
that girls are just like boys inside.


Men want casual sex but on the whole women don't want
sex outside a relationship.
--------------------
That's only if they have or want to have children right now.
They want a reliable breadwinner. If they could find someone
who wanted to support their children without ****ing them,
then they would be glad to **** practically anybody!

For the rest of women, when using birth control, the ONLY reason
they would avoid casual sex is because of HIV/AIDS and maybe
herpes.

If that weren't a problem, the late seventies and early 80's would
re-occur, and women would **** everybody on the block, which is
what we discovered at about that time in history. When contraception
is cheap and effective, and disease is not a problem, women **** just
like men. We know from this that they ALWAYS HAVE WANTED TO!!


If they did there would either be no
demand for female prostitutes, or an equal demand for male prostitutes
(other than by homosexuals). None of these things exist.
--------------------------
Throwaway human prostitutes were required ONLY because of a lack of
effective contraception and the suppression of sexuality by religious
authortiies made most wives back then effectively frigid, and this
problem exists even today in many women. They have been told that they
are sluts, and to avoid looking like it, and they have been taught to
think that's BAD, when in actual fact being a slut is VERY GOOD!
It means you're free and happy!


Prostitution undermines both women's influence over men and the
family unit
---------------------
Oh, you mean being pussy-whipped by women made frigid by oppressive
religion. As you can see, men will never let that occur. If women
denied men sex, women would find themselves ENSLAVED and systematically
DEPROGRAMMED so fast it would make their head spin!


and
casual sex undermines a society's health. These are the main reasons
why prostitution is illegal (where it is illegal).
------------------------------
Nonsense. All the societies in which sex is most casual are the most
peaceful and stable of all. There is a better way to make a culture
function than to try to deprive people of their natural human needs!!

And if there wasn't, why even bother to have a society at all!!

Establishments that cannot meet human needs will be overturned and
discarded! Monogamy was imposed on us by feudal slave-masters, and
this enslaving monogamy isn't long for this world, thank Gawd!! In
the future we will live in free-flowing affiliations of ****-friends
who have children together in collectives. Sex will be the dominant
form of public entertainment, people will get together at night in
large comfortable public bathes and have groupsex gangbangs. If people
sleep together it will be because they like sleeping with their best
friend. People will go about indoors without their genitals and breasts
uncovered so they can fondle each other. Sex will be merely a way of
affectionate greeting.


There are stupid men like you all over who are easily led by some
"controversial" talk-radio nincompoop into thinking they are the
victims once again, when they are actually the privileged!! The
way in which they are claiming victimhood is simply and stupidly
that they are losing their power over others. Poor babies!!

The question wasn't about privilege or victim-hood. It was about
whether most men would agree with you that their political system
provides them with free sex.
------------------------
Less so than they would LIKE, but they are politically brainwashed
against their own real good just like women are, to control them and
keep them serfs.


If they did agree with you it would wipe
out 50% of the Internet's business model, for a start!
---------------------------
Who cares? Would you rather spend hours looking at porn on the net
wasting broadband, or would you rather go down to your building's
****atorium and public shower and have sex with lots of people!??

Think of the vastly improved bandwidth we'd have if we weren't
interested in video-porn off the Net, but instead ****ed all our
friends. We might even build smaller simpler computers!


It can be alleged by the thieving rich that those trying to recover
stolen wealth from them are "insensitive". That's nothing but a lie
to try to keep their ill-gotten gain. I'll ignore the question of such
so-called "insensitivity" until everybody has access to a satisfying
sex life before I would ever call the deprived "insensitive"!!

Who are these sexually deprived people, if you are arguing that men
get free sex?
---------------------------
I argued that the system is designed to make sex as free as POSSIBLE
for men, NOT that it sufficiently met their needs, or women's!


Interpersonal sensitivity is a two way street. Have you noticed what
happens when you ignore it unilaterally?
--------------------------------
There is no cause whatsoever to imagine that public group sex is going
to make us all insensitive toward each other, in fact there is good
evidence and structural argument to suggest that NOW we are insensitive
to others NOT in our family/marriage BECAUSE WE DO NOT **** THEM!!!

Sex, to be effective, requires affection. If you just lined women up
on their knees and ****ed them all the time you'd miss out on an
enormously more satisfying way of doing it. And you might even get
friction sores. You'd certainly get bored quickly.

The role of erotic build-up and erotic affection in sex and the acts
of kissing and caressing and cunnilingus and fellatio and anal
stimulation are crucial to having the best sex. If you just ****ed
women penile-vaginally and then left, you would soon get inured to
it. But you will never get bored with making love, and you can even
do that with complete strangers, if you take the time and care.


You're arguing with poetry. It only means you don't have a grasp
of poetry, but more likely you're just being an offensive asshole.

Do you find that swearing at people convinces them that you are right?
---------------------------
No, but then that isn't its purpose.
Steve
--
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief
denied even to prayer." -Mark Twain.

"Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote:

It may be
politically incorrect, but I think every boy should own a knife, know
how to shoot a gun,

This boy sure did.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/...=2007706201308

P. Tierney

S_MacCloud wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Rob wrote:

On 21 Jun, 11:17, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Why do you think we
have always had laws against prostitution and fornication directed towards
females?
----------------------
Because men made the laws and women were weaker physically and had
no vote,

Really? Then explain why it is that the strong need laws,
---------------
Why, to tell the weak how they want them to behave, of course.

Communicating with your slaves is more efficient than beating
them till they accidentally figure out what you want!

why it is
overwhelmingly (stronger) men that prefer casual sex, not (weaker)
women,
-----------------
Because the weak have no power and no money and have to do all the work.
Casual sex, as it is available right now, is one way women wind up even
more enslaved by the society ruled by the strong.

The ONLY way to have good casual sex with variety is to enforce use of
birth control and strict controls of disease, just as we do for other
similarly deadly public health problems, and provide public venues for
open public sex with these partners.

yet almost all legal systems restrict it and (in the context of
the long and global history of legal prohibitions on prostitution) how
long most men have had the vote - in the west and worldwide.
--------------------------
Funnily enough it is NOT illegal for men in these systems, it is
for WOMEN ALONE! This is because men have decided that they want
the access to sexual variety, but if they decide not to pay them
they want the law to back them up! In other words, this is the way
men make sex "free" to them alone!

Only in more advanced partially maternally centered society is
prostitution EITHER de-pimped and legalized OR equally prosecuted
between the sexes.

In a truly advanced society no such would be needed, because key
to such a society is open public sexuality and a sense of obligation
to make sure everyone has a pleasing sex life.


you stupid ignorant ****.

We are all stupid ignorant ****s, it is only a matter of degree, but
other people tend to react more constructively if you don't show off
your own prowess so blatantly.
------------------------
WE are NOT all stupid ignorant ****s, but YOU are.


Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
--------------------------------
There is no gender equality without government support of persons with
children, paid by all citizens in their taxes, and custody is limited
to WHATEVER parents the CHILD wants!

This is proper because EVERYBODY benefits from children, by them doing
the harder work when you are no longer able, and to care for us in our
old age, and to advance the society by their new infusion of love and
creativity after ours is long exhausted and tired.

Remember: Children are the way that Love, Goodness, and Creativity come
into the Universe, and Death is the way that Hatred, Evil, and Ignorance
go out of it.
Steve

You're ****ing crazy as a loon.
--------------------
Oh THAT'S a useless meaningless comment.
It means you disagree but that you're too ****ing stupid and illiterate
to express precisely WHY!


Are you even a dude?
-------------------
Am I a dude? Oh THAT'S novel, nobody ever asked THAT before. Yes I am.


(I believe most pro fem is dudes, for this or that reasons. But this steve character
has a menatlly ill 20 something lesbian vibe about him)
----------------------------------
Try a 57 year old Communist with two grown children in their thirties.

For what it's worth I have been appointed an honorary Lesbian for my
talented tongue!
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Rob wrote:

On 21 Jun, 11:17, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Why do you think we
have always had laws against prostitution and fornication directed towards
females?
----------------------
Because men made the laws and women were weaker physically and had
no vote,

Really? Then explain why it is that the strong need laws,
---------------
Why, to tell the weak how they want them to behave, of course.

Communicating with your slaves is more efficient than beating
them till they accidentally figure out what you want!

why it is
overwhelmingly (stronger) men that prefer casual sex, not (weaker)
women,
-----------------
Because the weak have no power and no money and have to do all the work.
Casual sex, as it is available right now, is one way women wind up even
more enslaved by the society ruled by the strong.

The ONLY way to have good casual sex with variety is to enforce use of
birth control and strict controls of disease, just as we do for other
similarly deadly public health problems, and provide public venues for
open public sex with these partners.

yet almost all legal systems restrict it and (in the context of
the long and global history of legal prohibitions on prostitution) how
long most men have had the vote - in the west and worldwide.
--------------------------
Funnily enough it is NOT illegal for men in these systems, it is
for WOMEN ALONE! This is because men have decided that they want
the access to sexual variety, but if they decide not to pay them
they want the law to back them up! In other words, this is the way
men make sex "free" to them alone!

Only in more advanced partially maternally centered society is
prostitution EITHER de-pimped and legalized OR equally prosecuted
between the sexes.

In a truly advanced society no such would be needed, because key
to such a society is open public sexuality and a sense of obligation
to make sure everyone has a pleasing sex life.


you stupid ignorant ****.

We are all stupid ignorant ****s, it is only a matter of degree, but
other people tend to react more constructively if you don't show off
your own prowess so blatantly.
------------------------
WE are NOT all stupid ignorant ****s, but YOU are.


Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
--------------------------------
There is no gender equality without government support of persons with
children, paid by all citizens in their taxes, and custody is limited
to WHATEVER parents the CHILD wants!

This is proper because EVERYBODY benefits from children, by them doing
the harder work when you are no longer able, and to care for us in our
old age, and to advance the society by their new infusion of love and
creativity after ours is long exhausted and tired.

Remember: Children are the way that Love, Goodness, and Creativity come
into the Universe, and Death is the way that Hatred, Evil, and Ignorance
go out of it.
Steve

You're ****ing crazy as a loon. Are you even a dude?

(I believe most pro fem is dudes, for this or that reasons. But this steve character
has a menatlly ill 20 something lesbian vibe about him)

S_MacCloud wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

S_MacCloud wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Rob wrote:

On 21 Jun, 11:17, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Why do you think we
have always had laws against prostitution and fornication directed towards
females?
----------------------
Because men made the laws and women were weaker physically and had
no vote,

Really? Then explain why it is that the strong need laws,
---------------
Why, to tell the weak how they want them to behave, of course.

Communicating with your slaves is more efficient than beating
them till they accidentally figure out what you want!

why it is
overwhelmingly (stronger) men that prefer casual sex, not (weaker)
women,
-----------------
Because the weak have no power and no money and have to do all the work.
Casual sex, as it is available right now, is one way women wind up even
more enslaved by the society ruled by the strong.

The ONLY way to have good casual sex with variety is to enforce use of
birth control and strict controls of disease, just as we do for other
similarly deadly public health problems, and provide public venues for
open public sex with these partners.

yet almost all legal systems restrict it and (in the context of
the long and global history of legal prohibitions on prostitution) how
long most men have had the vote - in the west and worldwide.
--------------------------
Funnily enough it is NOT illegal for men in these systems, it is
for WOMEN ALONE! This is because men have decided that they want
the access to sexual variety, but if they decide not to pay them
they want the law to back them up! In other words, this is the way
men make sex "free" to them alone!

Only in more advanced partially maternally centered society is
prostitution EITHER de-pimped and legalized OR equally prosecuted
between the sexes.

In a truly advanced society no such would be needed, because key
to such a society is open public sexuality and a sense of obligation
to make sure everyone has a pleasing sex life.


you stupid ignorant ****.

We are all stupid ignorant ****s, it is only a matter of degree, but
other people tend to react more constructively if you don't show off
your own prowess so blatantly.
------------------------
WE are NOT all stupid ignorant ****s, but YOU are.


Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
--------------------------------
There is no gender equality without government support of persons with
children, paid by all citizens in their taxes, and custody is limited
to WHATEVER parents the CHILD wants!

This is proper because EVERYBODY benefits from children, by them doing
the harder work when you are no longer able, and to care for us in our
old age, and to advance the society by their new infusion of love and
creativity after ours is long exhausted and tired.

Remember: Children are the way that Love, Goodness, and Creativity come
into the Universe, and Death is the way that Hatred, Evil, and Ignorance
go out of it.
Steve

You're ****ing crazy as a loon.
--------------------
Oh THAT'S a useless meaningless comment.
It means you disagree but that you're too ****ing stupid and illiterate
to express precisely WHY!

Expression of precisely why [I think you're loony] begins he

"Remember: Children are the way that Love, Goodness, and Creativity come
into the Universe, and Death is the way that Hatred, Evil, and Ignorance
go out of it."
-----------------------------
I don't know why you're so on about that, it's perfectly true.

Innocent goodness is the quality of children.

That's an absolute constant in the history of western civilization,
if not all of humanity.
Steve



Are you even a dude?
-------------------
Am I a dude? Oh THAT'S novel, nobody ever asked THAT before. Yes I am.


(I believe most pro fem is dudes, for this or that reasons. But this steve character
has a menatlly ill 20 something lesbian vibe about him)
----------------------------------
Try a 57 year old Communist with two grown children in their thirties.

For what it's worth I have been appointed an honorary Lesbian for my
talented tongue!

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

S_MacCloud wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Rob wrote:

On 21 Jun, 11:17, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Why do you think we
have always had laws against prostitution and fornication directed towards
females?
----------------------
Because men made the laws and women were weaker physically and had
no vote,

Really? Then explain why it is that the strong need laws,
---------------
Why, to tell the weak how they want them to behave, of course.

Communicating with your slaves is more efficient than beating
them till they accidentally figure out what you want!

why it is
overwhelmingly (stronger) men that prefer casual sex, not (weaker)
women,
-----------------
Because the weak have no power and no money and have to do all the work.
Casual sex, as it is available right now, is one way women wind up even
more enslaved by the society ruled by the strong.

The ONLY way to have good casual sex with variety is to enforce use of
birth control and strict controls of disease, just as we do for other
similarly deadly public health problems, and provide public venues for
open public sex with these partners.

yet almost all legal systems restrict it and (in the context of
the long and global history of legal prohibitions on prostitution) how
long most men have had the vote - in the west and worldwide.
--------------------------
Funnily enough it is NOT illegal for men in these systems, it is
for WOMEN ALONE! This is because men have decided that they want
the access to sexual variety, but if they decide not to pay them
they want the law to back them up! In other words, this is the way
men make sex "free" to them alone!

Only in more advanced partially maternally centered society is
prostitution EITHER de-pimped and legalized OR equally prosecuted
between the sexes.

In a truly advanced society no such would be needed, because key
to such a society is open public sexuality and a sense of obligation
to make sure everyone has a pleasing sex life.


you stupid ignorant ****.

We are all stupid ignorant ****s, it is only a matter of degree, but
other people tend to react more constructively if you don't show off
your own prowess so blatantly.
------------------------
WE are NOT all stupid ignorant ****s, but YOU are.


Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
--------------------------------
There is no gender equality without government support of persons with
children, paid by all citizens in their taxes, and custody is limited
to WHATEVER parents the CHILD wants!

This is proper because EVERYBODY benefits from children, by them doing
the harder work when you are no longer able, and to care for us in our
old age, and to advance the society by their new infusion of love and
creativity after ours is long exhausted and tired.

Remember: Children are the way that Love, Goodness, and Creativity come
into the Universe, and Death is the way that Hatred, Evil, and Ignorance
go out of it.
Steve

You're ****ing crazy as a loon.
--------------------
Oh THAT'S a useless meaningless comment.
It means you disagree but that you're too ****ing stupid and illiterate
to express precisely WHY!

Expression of precisely why [I think you're loony] begins he

"Remember: Children are the way that Love, Goodness, and Creativity come
into the Universe, and Death is the way that Hatred, Evil, and Ignorance
go out of it."







Are you even a dude?
-------------------
Am I a dude? Oh THAT'S novel, nobody ever asked THAT before. Yes I am.


(I believe most pro fem is dudes, for this or that reasons. But this steve character
has a menatlly ill 20 something lesbian vibe about him)
----------------------------------
Try a 57 year old Communist with two grown children in their thirties.

For what it's worth I have been appointed an honorary Lesbian for my
talented tongue!

On 22 Jun, 18:13, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Rob wrote:

On 22 Jun, 07:09, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Mine was an explanation of why the white slave-masters of us all first
tried to use laws to enslave us, not how Democracy then coopted "law"
for its own purposes, which now benefits the Majority.

Unfortunately that explanation doesn't fit the facts. For example,
prostitution was widely legal in the United States until 1910-15 when
it was outlawed largely due to the influence of the Woman's Christian
Temperance Union. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution)

Warning: Wikopedia is a collection of people's OPINIONS.

Then quote a more reliable reference that confirms your assertions, if
you can.

And laws against prostitution go back as far as the Torah!
In practice they were relegated to neighborhoods where there
was no effective law.

Not so. For accounts of legalised prostitution in the middle ages (to
take one example time period) try:
- Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. By Brundage,
James A., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
- Prostitution in the Later Middle Ages. Sexual Practices and the
Medieval Church. By Bullough, Vern L. Ed. Vern L. Bullough and James
Brundage. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982, pp.176-86.
- Prostitution in Medieval Europe. Handbook of Medieval Sexuality by
Karras, Ruth Mazo.. Ed. Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage. New
York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996, pp. 243-60.
- Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages.
By Richards, Jeffrey. New York: Routledge, 1994

Sure there were a dozen per block in NYC at the turn of the
century. They lived side by side in tiny apartments with the poor
working class, but the price of a prostitute was MUCH less than
today, because those girls were STARVING after paying the rent.
Their pimp was the landlord, and he didn't even defend them!

But THEY had it GOOD by comparison. In earlier times prostitution
was literally a death sentence, and not because of disease but
deprivation. Syphillis wasn't even found in Europe till the 17th
century.

As for the WCTU, The last gasp of religious bigotry was always the
worst. This **** began in the latter 19th century and has persisted
through much of the 20th, till the sixties, and it is STILL being
rolled-back.

Look:
Whether formally illegal or not, women with their own money was
frowned upon by the crown/rich, and those women might be cheated or
practically killed, at WILL! Being unprotected by law is the same
as being assaulted by formal law.

Again, this representation of women's history as being unprotected and
legally deprived does not fit the facts. Plenty of women have worn
crowns and, throughout recorded history, plenty of women have had
power, property and money. Indeed 'women and children first' reflects
the fact that in most cases they are the first group to be protected
by a successful society.

There is good reason for this. Women naturally monopolise human's
scarce reproductive resources (eggs, womb, breasts and maternal
instinct) and, in any competitive environment, societies that failed
to protect their women and children quickly died out or had to give
way to their more populated competitors. There's no 'human' or
'cultural' choice in this, it is simply an unavoidable biological
fact. Sperm is plentiful, men are reproductively more disposable and,
in any earthly biological species, reproduction is a fundamental
attribute of what future generations perceive as success. If
reproduction doesn't happen then we're simply not here to see it.

The misunderstanding that leads you to believe 'women were not
protected by law historically' (when even the briefest study of the
actual sequence of, for example, labour laws proves exactly the
opposite) arises through the difficulties involved today in
appreciating life-as-it-was-lived before the industrial revolution and
the different, pre-modern concept of marriage that evolved under those
conditions.

Historically, marriage evolved into (amongst other things) a real
legal union of two people such that the resulting family was treated
by most economic laws as one (virtual) person. This had many
advantages and cultures that adopted this model flourished at the
expense of those that didn't. To make it work, though, at least one
adult had to be held fully responsible for the (one legal entity)
family's actions under those economic laws. It made sense for that
responsible person to be the man, not least because he was more
reproductively disposable (see: who owns the scarce reproductive
assets, above).

Early traders (usually men or widows, i.e. adults who weren't fully
committed to the process of reproduction) wouldn't carry out any form
of time-dependent trade with reproductive-aged women because they knew
they couldn't rely on the authorities to enforce the contract if she
became pregnant or assumed caring responsibilities, so instead they
dealt with her menfolk. Courts were loath to punish a woman if it
threatened her reproductive capacity or meant an innocent party (baby,
child, invalid, lunatic or geriatric) would suffer or be deprived, not
least because the courts had no reasonable means to cater for the
innocent party, there being no welfare state nor the wealth to fund
one (there were instances where all her dependents ended up suffering
directly for her actions but these didn't work well and were widely
protested at the time - such behaviour could never be reproductively
competitive).

These early traders weren't stupid. If they were to stand a chance of
succeeding they needed to be able to 100% enforce their rights under a
contract and, with a reproductively-capable woman, it was stark-
staringly obvious that they could not rely on legal enforcement when
Ms Debtor could skip away under the protection of the nursery as soon
as things got a bit hot. Much as these days the US navy can't rely on
women sailors if they make a habit of getting pregnant just as war
threatens.

Consider, also, that almost everyone alive in the past was 'oppressed'
in the modern day meaning of that term. Herstory's presentation of the
conspiratorial oppression of women-as-a-collective by men-as-a-
collective betrays a thorough-going misunderstanding of the central
importance of sexual specialisation to early economic development and
of the practical possibilities of human life before the industrial
revolution (when man-power became substitutable). Herstory, it might
be noted, also implies an astonishing disparagement of the
capabilities of our great-grandmothers.

Had! Had. THings are getting better.

Q. Is the reference above to the Man's Christian Temperance Union or
to the Woman's Christian Temperance Union?

Neither. Sexuality is becoming more open and acceptible for ALL women,
and that ALWAYS decreases prostitution, because they can't compete
with FREE.

and/or that pampered and
wealthy women seek out casual sex as much as poor, powerless men?

So do rich papmpered men and poor women. Sex is a universal drive.

The point is not about sex but about casual sex. 9 out of 10 women
consider casual sex immoral (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/
4863770.stm).

Nothing but regurgitation of what they think you want to hear.
In secret they want to **** almost everyone.

Damn, if only we knew about those secret ****s they're having with us
we could all enjoy them a bit more, huh?

Perhaps all those (so far very silent) men who think the system
provides them with free sex could explain to the rest of us how that
might happen.

They prove it at
every turn.

That's what you are being asked to demonstrate. Evidence so far: Nil.

Men want casual sex but on the whole women don't want
sex outside a relationship.

That's only if they have or want to have children right now.
They want a reliable breadwinner. If they could find someone
who wanted to support their children without ****ing them,
then they would be glad to **** practically anybody!

For the rest of women, when using birth control, the ONLY reason
they would avoid casual sex is because of HIV/AIDS and maybe herpes.

If that weren't a problem, the late seventies and early 80's would
re-occur, and women would **** everybody on the block, which is
what we discovered at about that time in history. When contraception
is cheap and effective, and disease is not a problem, women **** just
like men. We know from this that they ALWAYS HAVE WANTED TO!!

Read a few studies about the differences between men's and women's
attitude to casual sex (e.g.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en... pt=Citation).

Life is not as you would like it to be, I'm afraid.

If they did there would either be no
demand for female prostitutes, or an equal demand for male prostitutes
(other than by homosexuals). None of these things exist.

Throwaway human prostitutes were required ONLY because of a lack of
effective contraception and the suppression of sexuality by religious
authortiies made most wives back then effectively frigid, and this
problem exists even today in many women. They have been told that they
are sluts, and to avoid looking like it, and they have been taught to
think that's BAD, when in actual fact being a slut is VERY GOOD!
It means you're free and happy!

Prostitution undermines both women's influence over men and the
family unit

Oh, you mean being pussy-whipped by women made frigid by oppressive
religion. As you can see, men will never let that occur. If women
denied men sex, women would find themselves ENSLAVED and systematically
DEPROGRAMMED so fast it would make their head spin!

and
casual sex undermines a society's health. These are the main reasons
why prostitution is illegal (where it is illegal).

Nonsense. All the societies in which sex is most casual are the most
peaceful and stable of all....

They are also the least successful societies, to the point of total
invisibility. Figures, with all those secret copulations.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.

Rob wrote:

On 22 Jun, 18:13, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Warning: Wikopedia is a collection of people's OPINIONS.

Then quote a more reliable reference that confirms your assertions, if
you can.
---------------
The only time I quote anything is as illustration, NOT proof, because
there is no proof except your own belief and the wholly subjective
reasonableness of an argument.

I ONLY argue from structrue, NOT from evidence. Also, Usenet is NOT a
peer-reviewed arena and there's nobody to shut someone up who wants to
lie like crazy. We already HAVE peer-reviewed venues, and this isn't
one of them!

There's no prupose in presenting any evidence when others can make
theirs up. I have also found that nobody ever believes anything unless
it makes sense to them from a structural argument, so that evidence
for the purposes of persuasion is totally irrelevant.

I have ALSO noted in my life experience that everything that CAN be
supported by actual evidence ALSO has the quality of making perfect
sense structurally.

So get used to it, you won't find me citing anything for proof of
anything I say. I rely on the argument's structure to decide its
usefulness, and I challenge anyone else to construct arguments as
well thought-out as mine. I haven't seen ANYBODY do that for a VERY
long time now in my life!


And laws against prostitution go back as far as the Torah!
In practice they were relegated to neighborhoods where there
was no effective law.

Not so. For accounts of legalised prostitution in the middle ages (to
-----------------
Europe ain't everywhere, and that wasn't everywhen. The argument is
that prostitution has been persecuted often in the past. That is all
that it takes to justify the points I was making.


As for the WCTU, The last gasp of religious bigotry was always the
worst. This **** began in the latter 19th century and has persisted
through much of the 20th, till the sixties, and it is STILL being
rolled-back.

Look:
Whether formally illegal or not, women with their own money was
frowned upon by the crown/rich, and those women might be cheated or
practically killed, at WILL! Being unprotected by law is the same
as being assaulted by formal law.

Again, this representation of women's history as being unprotected and
legally deprived does not fit the facts.
---------------------------
The right of women to own property is recent in Europe. The right of
women to inherit is recent in Europe. You're blathering.


Plenty of women have worn crowns
----------------------
What percentage of women? You see, that's stupid.


and, throughout recorded history, plenty of women have had
power, property and money. Indeed 'women and children first' reflects
the fact that in most cases they are the first group to be protected
by a successful society.
------------------------------
Only as the property of their husbands/fathers. Without a slave a
master is not a master, so they meant: MY women and children first!!
And of course like on the Titanic, those in steerage all drowned,
men, women, and children alike. Only the wives and children of the
RICH were saved.


There is good reason for this. Women naturally monopolise human's
scarce reproductive resources (eggs, womb, breasts and maternal
instinct) and, in any competitive environment, societies that failed
to protect their women and children quickly died out or had to give
-----------------------
Being saved only means that you're valuable property, not free, and
not privileged.


Consider, also, that almost everyone alive in the past was 'oppressed'
in the modern day meaning of that term. Herstory's presentation of the
conspiratorial oppression of women-as-a-collective by men-as-a-
collective betrays a thorough-going misunderstanding of the central
importance of sexual specialisation to early economic development and
of the practical possibilities of human life before the industrial
revolution (when man-power became substitutable). Herstory, it might
be noted, also implies an astonishing disparagement of the
capabilities of our great-grandmothers.
----------------------
Nonsense. You're saying we should be proud of our female forebears
for being such great sex-slaves and drudges.



The point is not about sex but about casual sex. 9 out of 10 women
consider casual sex immoral (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/
4863770.stm).

Nothing but regurgitation of what they think you want to hear.
In secret they want to **** almost everyone.

Damn, if only we knew about those secret ****s they're having with us
we could all enjoy them a bit more, huh?
--------------------------
Not having, wanting, dumbass. Read for comprehension, not to figure
out your next witty riposte!


Perhaps all those (so far very silent) men who think the system
provides them with free sex could explain to the rest of us how that
might happen.
------------------------------
And again you simply ignored by point, you did not address it.


That's what you are being asked to demonstrate. Evidence so far: Nil.
-------------------
You're blathering disingenuously, at the time you wrote that I had
not even seen it.

Evidence?: Citations!: Useless! Won't happen, and doesn't need to.
You can only "prove" things to idiots if they happen to already
believe them.


Men want casual sex but on the whole women don't want
sex outside a relationship.

That's only if they have or want to have children right now.
They want a reliable breadwinner. If they could find someone
who wanted to support their children without ****ing them,
then they would be glad to **** practically anybody!

For the rest of women, when using birth control, the ONLY reason
they would avoid casual sex is because of HIV/AIDS and maybe herpes.

If that weren't a problem, the late seventies and early 80's would
re-occur, and women would **** everybody on the block, which is
what we discovered at about that time in history. When contraception
is cheap and effective, and disease is not a problem, women **** just
like men. We know from this that they ALWAYS HAVE WANTED TO!!

Read a few studies about the differences between men's and women's
attitude to casual sex (e.g.
----------------
Again, you're asking them to regurgitate what they know you want to
hear. That's not truth, that's even dishonest, a socially driven
circularity.

And causal sex per today's model isn't what anybody wants. They
all secretly want sex within their circle of friends, those they
can raise kids with.


Life is not as you would like it to be, I'm afraid.
------------------------
No, you're JUST afraid.


Nonsense. All the societies in which sex is most casual are the most
peaceful and stable of all....

They are also the least successful societies, to the point of total
invisibility.
---------------------------------
Funny. I don't see Europe as invisible. The Euro is way up against
the dollar!


Figures, with all those secret copulations.
Rob
--------------------------------
All grasping for charisma via demanding cites is simply cheap
dishonesty, nothing more. It's nothing more than putting off
having to express reason and logic.
Steve

On 24 Jun, 19:18, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Rob wrote:

On 22 Jun, 18:13, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Warning: Wikopedia is a collection of people's OPINIONS.

Then quote a more reliable reference that confirms your assertions, if
you can.

---------------
The only time I quote anything is as illustration, NOT proof, because
there is no proof except your own belief and the wholly subjective
reasonableness of an argument.

I ONLY argue from structrue, NOT from evidence. Also, Usenet is NOT a
peer-reviewed arena and there's nobody to shut someone up who wants to
lie like crazy. We already HAVE peer-reviewed venues, and this isn't
one of them!

There's no prupose in presenting any evidence when others can make
theirs up. I have also found that nobody ever believes anything unless
it makes sense to them from a structural argument, so that evidence
for the purposes of persuasion is totally irrelevant.

I have ALSO noted in my life experience that everything that CAN be
supported by actual evidence ALSO has the quality of making perfect
sense structurally.

So get used to it, you won't find me citing anything for proof of
anything I say. I rely on the argument's structure to decide its
usefulness, and I challenge anyone else to construct arguments as
well thought-out as mine. I haven't seen ANYBODY do that for a VERY
long time now in my life!

If you continue with that approach I can confidently predict that you
won't see anybody do it ever again! Unless you open your mind to
evidence, that is.

Despite all its shortcomings evidence is the only tool available to
help make our mental portrayal of the world useful.

While there's wisdom in the old adage 'I won't see [that] until I
believe it', it is not universal. People do change their minds and it
is usually evidence that persuades them.

Your 'wanton but historically enslaved' view of women is in conflict
with the evidence as presented. If you don't present any other
evidence then that isn't going to change, however structurally sound
you may think your worldview is.

Perhaps the world you envisage does exist somewhere, but not on this
planet. Over here in Europe - where, yes, the Euro is strong but where
you are, no, not likely to find any women pursuing casual sex for the
sake of it - we call that fantasy.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.

Rob wrote:

On 24 Jun, 19:18, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Rob wrote:

On 22 Jun, 18:13, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Warning: Wikopedia is a collection of people's OPINIONS.

Then quote a more reliable reference that confirms your assertions, if
you can.
---------------
The only time I quote anything is as illustration, NOT proof, because
there is no proof except your own belief and the wholly subjective
reasonableness of an argument.

I ONLY argue from structrue, NOT from evidence. Also, Usenet is NOT a
peer-reviewed arena and there's nobody to shut someone up who wants to
lie like crazy. We already HAVE peer-reviewed venues, and this isn't
one of them!

There's no prupose in presenting any evidence when others can make
theirs up. I have also found that nobody ever believes anything unless
it makes sense to them from a structural argument, so that evidence
for the purposes of persuasion is totally irrelevant.

I have ALSO noted in my life experience that everything that CAN be
supported by actual evidence ALSO has the quality of making perfect
sense structurally.

So get used to it, you won't find me citing anything for proof of
anything I say. I rely on the argument's structure to decide its
usefulness, and I challenge anyone else to construct arguments as
well thought-out as mine. I haven't seen ANYBODY do that for a VERY
long time now in my life!

If you continue with that approach I can confidently predict that you
won't see anybody do it ever again! Unless you open your mind to
evidence, that is.
----------------------------
Oh give me a break. People pay lip-service to "evidence", but virtually
all "evidence" is subjectively-based and quite biased and stilted by
the very efforts to generate it to support some certain view, and
people know this, and so they actually make up their mind based on
whether the idea makes good sense to them rationally, logically, and
structurally. And it's better if they do so because it would be far
too easy otherwise to get blown this way and that by competing bodies
of biased, stilted so-called "research" and its even more biased and
stilted "analysis" by people with vested interests in the Truth being
this or that. Better to decide what you really want your Truth to be
ahead of time by logic and reason and structure so at least you're
being honest with youtself and have a decent chance of being not only
right, but agreeing with the Truth when you are finally convinced of
it!!


Despite all its shortcomings evidence is the only tool available to
help make our mental portrayal of the world useful.
------------------------
Oh it has usefulness, sure, but beyond stating the most obvious things
it isn't really that important. The mound of supposed higher order
"truth" they try to hang on the smallest fact-based revelations from
research make a mockery of the whole process. If you want to have a
peer-reviewed journal, then don't try to do it on Usenet where your
panel doesn't control the content that gets published under your
auspices!

I see lousy analysis all the time that pretends the utmost expert-hood
and tries to blame this or that on the tiniest pseudo-truth gleaned
from the latest half=botched research.

I saw, for instance, last week, that the cause celeb among child and
teen psychologists lately is to try to get teens to believe that they
are ****ed off because "their brains are still growing and changing",
and that they should disregard their own thoughts and feelings because
they are unable to have a "real" thought or emotion yet!!

And of course, this is supposedly based on PET-scan data. This, when
any PET-scan expert witness would rip that to bloody pieces on the
witness stand in any courtroom. PET-scans are simply not so developed
an art as to even decide what such research even means, because we
don't know precisely HOW the brain works, so far they only reveal gross
anomalies, clots, hemorhages and tumors, and whatnot, and when they
don't have the vaguest notion what this might meaan, and have even less
originality in interpreting such things. If they look at the brains of
aging people and say that the brain isn't working right anymore, and
then use that as an excuse to try to put everyone over 50 into special
legal status, well, that just wouldn't fly, dontcha know, but there
is NO effort to use cross-sociological analysis to try to decipher
the cultural reasons for their own phony and quite culturally biased
interpretations!! For all we know, teen brains work even BETTER than
anyone else's who is older, and THAT'S why they are decidely ****ED OFF
at their abusive treatment by this society and their high-handed
parents!!


While there's wisdom in the old adage 'I won't see [that] until I
believe it', it is not universal. People do change their minds and it
is usually evidence that persuades them.
------------------------------
Nope. People change their minds for the most part because their
neighbors do. Only intelligent people do it for their own reasons,
and then it's all about their own reason and logic, and not about what
all intelligent people know can be very phony research and supposed
evidence.


Your 'wanton but historically enslaved' view of women is in conflict
with the evidence as presented.
---------------
Don't tease, you presented nothing but your own belief-system.


If you don't present any other
evidence then that isn't going to change, however structurally sound
you may think your worldview is.
----------------------------------
You mean YOUR view isn't going to change, no matter what.
We knoew that going in! Right-wingers never THINK they'll change,
till they DO!

Evidence doesn't interest me, only a good logical well-reasoned
argument interests me, because the Real Truth(tm) is one whole.
It all has to fit together perfectly to make the world work, or
it can't even BE true!


Perhaps the world you envisage does exist somewhere, but not on this
planet.
----------------------
It exists already, it's just waiting to explode.
Everything in this culture predicts and awaits it with bated breath.


Over here in Europe - where, yes, the Euro is strong but where
you are, no, not likely to find any women pursuing casual sex for the
sake of it - we call that fantasy.
--
Rob
----------------------------------------------
A religious right-winger in Europe. How can you pssibly cope!!??
You'll go crazy. No wonder you're whining on UseNet!
Steve