Dangerous Boys

wrote:

Explain why it is that older educated white men have for hundreds of
years now, continually passed laws that have given away their power
until now any one who worships a voodoo god is welcomed into Scouting?
--------------
It isn't, that's just right-wing stupid old-**** propaganda, intended
to effect a backlash against tolerance and egalitarianism. In point
of historical fact, it has been the former serfs who have made the
new improved demands on society, and the old-white-****s have had to
comply, because they were up against their oldest enemy, Democracy!!
Steve

wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:04:20 -0700, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:

Dangerous Boys

http://livingthegrandlife.blogspot.com/2007/06/dangerous-boys.html
http://tinyurl.com/yrbdac

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

You have read the stories in the news. (car fires & more)

Police are seeking information about a spate of vehicle fires north
and west of Lincoln Park early Sunday morning.

Eleven vehicles and a Dumpster were set ablaze between 4 and 6:10 a.m

I'll make a prediction. When they catch the culprits it will turn out
to be an informal gang of unsupervised boys looking for trouble. Even
if I'm wrong in this instance, we've seen this kind of thing before.
Windows broken or mailboxes randomly destroyed for "the fun of it."

There are no quick fixes. Building a rec center won't keep this from
happening.

At the same time I was reading about the fires, I received a notice
from Amazon that they were shipping a book I had ordered. The book is
titled, The Dangerous Book for Boys.

The book has had a bit of play on different websites. It promises
politically incorrect humor and adventure. It even includes a section
on "How to hunt and cook a rabbit".

I plan to read it and pass it on to my nephew and his three sons. I
also plan on passing on my treasured 1959 copy of the Boy Scout
Handbook. It teaches boys how to use a knife and build a fire. It even
has advertisements for rifles and shotguns.

If you are still with me you are probably wondering how these topics
fit together.

Boys, like puppies, are driven to explore their world. It is easy for
them to get into trouble. When I worked for the Division of Youth
Corrections, I dealt with a lot of boys in trouble. Some had started
fires, boys like fire. No one had ever taught then to build a fire
safely. Boys are fascinated with guns, but no one had taught them
firearm safety. The first time some of them had fired a gun was at
another person. Never having instruction or experience they had no
idea what would happen. Schools have zero tolerance for knifes and a
Swiss army knife will earn the boot. Yet, I've carried a knife since I
was eight. My grandfather gave me a pocket knife (and instruction). He
said, "A man should always have knife". I still think so.

I think our experiment in changing the nature of boys hasn't worked
too well. Boys need a little danger. They need to learn to build a
fire even if they sustain a little burn. They need to learn how to use
a knife and an ax, even if they cut themselves.

And they need to learn it in a context of responsibility. The Boy
Scout Handbook isn't just about dangerous things. It is also full of
honor and duty to God and Country, to self and others. Reading parts
of the book again I am surprised at how little schools and society
talk about such things now.

We have tried zero tolerance and wishful thinking. It may be
politically incorrect, but I think every boy should own a knife, know
how to shoot a gun, build a fire and learn the concepts of duty and
honor.

Posted by Gene Kinsey at 6:03 AM
----------------------
Boys should be taught the proper use of, and be given, all tools.

But at the same time they must be taught that if they intentionally
commit malicious mischief or cause harm that they will be taken out
and have their balls and dick cut off while they are alive prparatory
to KILLING THEM! The only way to control such a human force of nature
as a boy, is to make him VERY afraid of MEN!!
Steve

Aren't all parents scared to death of trusting the Boy Scouts with
their children unless they have an anal chastity belt?
------------------------
Boys need to learn to suck cock and take it up the ass. It encourages
their sexuality when they have no access to girls. Better yet, combine
the boys and firl scouts and give them a place to ****!


Meanwhile, girls, fags,
--
(skip one)

and god deniers should be
---------------------
Which ****ing god? There are thousands, all different.


secluded from any
knowledge of how to make fire, tie a knot, or pitch a tent.
-------------------------
Then you couldn't get your slaves to do what you need, dummy!
Steve

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.

Excellent.

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!

As it should be since men pay for everything.


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!

Cool.


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

Even in Holland where it is legal the girls have pimps. Poor dears simply
can't live without a man.



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.

Looks like you're not getting any lardarse lol




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,


We men invented machines for that lol



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.

The older people are actually more creative. The young are too busy trying
to get laid.




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 Stoopid?
Steve

On 21 Jun, 18:43, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:32:11 -0700, Rob wrote:
On 21 Jun, 11:17, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Avenger wrote:

The male of the species engages in more danger already, which is why
his life span is decreased. They take more illegal drugs; they drink
more alcohol; they choose riskier work and avocations, and they make
riskier sexual choices, often using prostitutes.

That's all bull****. Their lifespan is somewhat shorter due to HARD work and
stress. They take riskier jobs to earn more money to support females and
because a female couldn't do the job anyway. Females have a higher rate of
drinking,drugging and smoking and due to their metabolisms, brain chemistry
and self indulgent nature have a harder time quitting. They are also prone
to run to fat.Female prostitutes and ordinary good time party girls spread
VD and to be safe we should view all females as carriers.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 it is
overwhelmingly (stronger) men that prefer casual sex, not (weaker)
women, 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.

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.

Explain why it is that older educated white men have for hundreds of
years now, continually passed laws that have given away their power

'Power' is a tricky little blighter. A modern day politician can get
elected (e.g. increasing his personal power) by promising change (e.g.
reducing his group's power). He scores a net win, which is what he's
after.

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

On 21 Jun, 19:42, "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!

But much less flexible and not a solution any of the human societies
that have practiced slavery have ever implemented. The law is for
citizens.

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.

Are you suggesting that women have no power and/or that pampered and
wealthy women seek out casual sex as much as poor, powerless men?

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!

Are you arguing that most political systems provide men with free sex?
I wonder how many men you could find who would agree with that
proposition.

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.

Is your dreamed-of society with a 'sense of obligation to make sure
everyone has a pleasing sex life' full of people with such little
interpersonal sensitivity?

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.

Those with young children, or who've lost a loving friend, know
different.

So what do we agree on? Children are the future, STDs are a public
health matter and sex should be fun.

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

Avenger 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.

Excellent.

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!

As it should be since men pay for everything.
---------------------------------
Nonsense. Women everywhere do most of the work.

Maybe not YOUR ex-wife, but then that's YOUR fault.


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!

Cool.


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

Even in Holland where it is legal the girls have pimps. Poor dears simply
can't live without a man.
--------------------------
In Holland they don't have pimps, they are employed by agents, and
they have a union with strict rules.


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.

Looks like you're not getting any lardarse lol
----------------------------
No. I'm getting too much, frankly. Can't keep up at my age.


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,

We men invented machines for that lol
-----------------------------
Most child-labor was running machines, dummy.


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.

The older people are actually more creative. The young are too busy trying
to get laid.
---------------------------
Depends what you're measuring. The two kinds of work are done by
two different classes. But both are required for our mutual survival.
Youth TEND to be more physical laborers before they get more educated,
that's all.

If you wanted to call prosperity "more creative", that's nuts, because
the most prosperous people just learned to do the same profitable thing
over and over in a very boring stultifying manner. It isn't creative,
and it isn't even the kind of thing the society needs to advance, in
fact it works AGAINST advancement, it is mere crass and venal
opportunistic profiteering.


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 Stoopid?
---------------------------
WE are NOT all stupid ignorant ****s, but YOU are.
Steve

Rob wrote:

On 21 Jun, 19:42, "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!

But much less flexible and not a solution any of the human societies
that have practiced slavery have ever implemented. The law is for
citizens.
---------------------------
He asked why men had laws against prostitution.

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.


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.

Are you suggesting that women have no power
------------------
Had! Had. THings are getting better.


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.


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!

Are you arguing that most political systems provide men with free sex?
-----------------------
Sure.


I wonder how many men you could find who would agree with that
proposition.
-----------------------------
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!!


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.

Is your dreamed-of society with a 'sense of obligation to make sure
everyone has a pleasing sex life' full of people with such little
interpersonal sensitivity?
---------------------------------------
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"!!


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.

Those with young children, or who've lost a loving friend, know
different.
------------------------------
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.


So what do we agree on? Children are the future, STDs are a public
health matter and sex should be fun.
Rob
---------------------------------
Depends what you measn by that.
Perhaps we actually agree on nothing, obviously.

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!
Steve

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

On 21 Jun, 19:42, "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!

But much less flexible and not a solution any of the human societies
that have practiced slavery have ever implemented. The law is for
citizens.

He asked why men had laws against prostitution.

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)

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.

Are you suggesting that women have no power

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?

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). Men want casual sex but on the whole women don't want
sex outside a relationship. 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. Prostitution
undermines both women's influence over men and the family unit and
casual sex undermines a society's health. These are the main reasons
why prostitution is illegal (where it is illegal).

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!

Are you arguing that most political systems provide men with free sex?

Sure.

I wonder how many men you could find who would agree with that
proposition.

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. If they did agree with you it would wipe
out 50% of the Internet's business model, for a start!

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.

Is your dreamed-of society with a 'sense of obligation to make sure
everyone has a pleasing sex life' full of people with such little
interpersonal sensitivity?

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?

Interpersonal sensitivity is a two way street. Have you noticed what
happens when you ignore it unilaterally?

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.

Those with young children, or who've lost a loving friend, know
different.

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?

So what do we agree on? Children are the future, STDs are a public
health matter and sex should be fun.
Rob

Depends what you measn by that.
Perhaps we actually agree on nothing, obviously.

If you don't want to find common ground that's fine by me. No point in
continuing.

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

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.

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 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. They prove it at
every turn.


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!! Those
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 dominent form
of public entertainment, people will get together at night in large
comfortable public showers and have groupsex gangbangs. If people
sleep together it will be because they like sleeping with their best
friend. People will go about inoors without their genitals and breasts
covered so they can fondle each other. Sex will be nearly a way of
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,
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 you'd miss out on an enormously more
satisfying way of doing it. And you might even get friction sores.

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 bored with
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.

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.

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 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. They prove it at
every turn.


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!! Those
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 dominent form
of public entertainment, people will get together at night in large
comfortable public showers and have groupsex gangbangs. If people
sleep together it will be because they like sleeping with their best
friend. People will go about inoors without their genitals and breasts
covered so they can fondle each other. Sex will be nearly a way of
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,
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 you'd miss out on an enormously more
satisfying way of doing it. And you might even get friction sores.

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 bored with
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.