"New law could criminalise men for buying sex" (IT)

Bottle_of_Smoke

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Reward the "used for sex" thing as said by women means this.

You meet a guy, he says he really likes you, he can't believe he has such a connection with you, he thinks you are "the one", he calls and texts you every day, you really like him aswell.

You sleep with him. The minute after you sleep with him he goes stone cold on you and doesn't want to know you.

This is what leads women to feel used for sex. That a man can completely lie to them to get what he wants, (sex) and then ditch them. This makes you feel worthless as a human being.

This happened to me once, and I thought for ages, "how could I have been so wrong? How did I get it so wrong?"

This is why women feel used. I sometimes think men don't realise the hurt they can inflict on women in this type of scenario.

Trust me - that goes both ways. Just men don't admit to feeling hurt about it and girls don't realise they should feel guilty about it.

parker kent

midlandsmissus wrote: »

This is why women feel used. I sometimes think men don't realise the hurt they can inflict on women in this type of scenario.

Some men don't, not all men. There is a big difference. The same way that some women don't realise the hurt they can cause men. Men are not emotionless robots programmed to have sex with as many women as possible. Some men will use women, but there will be men used for sex too. It is just not as socially acceptable for a man to come out and say "I feel used".

Scanlas The 2nd

One phrase I think is potentially damaging to women that goes around is "selling yourself" in reference to having sex for money. It implies the only worth women have is sex. It implies a woman's value equals the sex that she can give you.

metrovelvet

Somehow I can't imagine that someone who sucks cock for a living wants to pay prsi, self employment tax, public liability insurance, and a 13% service charge to the government.

ArtSmart

iptba wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0103/1224286669821.html

I'm sure loads of men will welcome this law for one reason or another but I won't be one of them.

I have never used a prostitude nor have I plans to use one.

But I recall seeing cases of women in a region having a "sex ban" to force the men in the community to do something or other.

yeah? on tv was it? wasn't that the show with the robot sex slaves?

It effectively can/could mean women have all the power.

effectively

A question of supply and demand - if there is a monopoly on the supply, the price can be set very high.

Luckily 'you never will' 'use' a prostitute so that wont effect you. - oh wait, the 'sex ban', i forgot.

Prostitution may stop this monopoly to an extent. Or another way of putting it is that one could have a women-controlled state, where men are slaves because women institute sex bans until they get what they want. All dramatic sounding I know.

not at all. (cough, nutter, cough)


And I'm sure lots of PC men will revel in disagreeing and feel all superior. But that's the beauty of the internet - one can express non-PC views.

ah yes, the beauty of it all.

Unfortunately politicians can't afford to not be PC so I imagine this will probably go through.

poor politicians. damn you PC, damn you to hell!

I'm not even sure if many people would write in to newspapers to complain?

Part of my reasoning is that I'm not convinced every woman is forced to do it. It might not have been her first career choice but lots of people including lots of men do jobs that wouldn't be their career choice. I certainly wouldn't want to work a mile underground in a mine in dangerous conditions for example. On a more mundane level, not many children (or their parents) would hope they would grow up to clean toilets for a living or whatever.


*sigh*
what's the point.

all that reasoning.

wow.

iptba

ArtSmart wrote: »

all that reasoning.

wow.

Ditto

tbh

I think everyone who has something to say on this issue has now said it. Seeing as we're now reduced to "you're stupid" "no you're stupid" it's time to close. If ye have anything final to add, do it now, will close the thread tonight.

ArtSmart

just read through iptba's posts.

all clearer now.

best wishes dude.

midlandsmissus

Originally Posted by Reward

Yes, you set a price of secondary benefits, "being the one" (commitment, emotional investment, time) he faked your secondary benefit requirement price in order to have sex with you and never paid you your ongoing investment. So you were used for sex.

Does the concept of "liking some-one" ever come into it for you?

Women don't have sex to get commitment. I've never had sex with some-one to get them to stay with me. I've had sex with people because I really liked them and I wanted to have sex with them.

When you really like some-one you want to have sex with them and you want to be around them (commitment as you say), so in my scenario I really liked the person, but he faked his personality, in effect lying to some-one to get what he wanted.

Also, a point I think you're severely missing. Men and women have different needs and different levels of importance on things. Imagine how important sex is to you, that is how important emotional bonding is to women. If neither get their needs met, they feel like they are being used.

If you a brought out a woman on a load of dates and were very romantic with her, but there was no sex, you would start to feel used right?

It works both ways. We have differnt things that are important to us. Both sexes like each of these things but one takes paramount importance to each gender.

How can you expect men and women to think exactly the same? We are different on every aspect, the polar opposite of each other mentally and physically. we have different needs and we complement each other.