The Sexual Cartel

Tom M wrote: »

What do you think of this?

I think you're spot-on. Now I have to say I don't know how all the women communicate secretly with each other, but I'd put money on telekinesis. Or maybe witchcraft!

[Deleted User]

At the request of several people I'm reopening this thread. If it turns into a mess it'll immediately be closed again.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I think you're spot-on. Now I have to say I don't know how all the women communicate secretly with each other, but I'd put money on telekinesis. Or maybe witchcraft!

You are just making fun because you do not have a valid argument. If you do post it

His argument about players is what the players say.i.e that women do like sex but do not admit it and wheter it is right or wrong it is an interesting debate.

One could argue there is some truth in what he says re prostitutes and womens attitudes to them

alyssum wrote: »

You are just making fun because you do not have a valid argument. If you do post it

They're making fun because the opening argument is absurd. There is a valid discussion to be had around attitudes towards sex, but the OP did not start that discussion. The OP claims there is a large group of women who have a formal agreement (i.e. a cartel) about how to act in order to secure certain behaviour. That belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum

srsly78

Women are indeed involved in a conspiracy going back to the dawn of humanity - that of making sure the species survives. Meanwhile the men perform their own role as dictated by evolutionary biology - acting in a disruptive fashion (and as studs ofc).

So pretty much the same as with many other species then? Maybe the whole thing is a billion year conspiracy by alien parasites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_Hypothesis

Wibbs

28064212 wrote: »

They're making fun because the opening argument is absurd. There is a valid discussion to be had around attitudes towards sex, but the OP did not start that discussion. The OP claims there is a large group of women who have a formal agreement (i.e. a cartel) about how to act in order to secure certain behaviour. That belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum

Indeed it does. One might exchange the near paranoid cartel nonsense with societal pressures and as srsly78 referenced evolutionary biology.

On the latter front humans are quite different to the other great apes in a number of respects. For a start women hide their fertility status and are fertile most of the time, which might suggest a "ruse" to keep males interested or kept guessing for good biological reasons.

Tom M wrote:

In order for this to work they must ensure as many men as possible think that sex is highly scarce.

This I have always found an interesting one. Not the conspiracy nonsense, but the idea in many mens heads that sex is scarce. However I would say that's societies selection pressure at work, not women, or men.

The rest is the usual PUA stuff all too common online. There are some small points to be made, but these ejjits run with it too far. To the point of daftness.

smcgiff

I think you'll find that it has been a male dominated organisation that has dictated that sex is dirty - the Church. Although, that might fall under the 'Gay' clause you inserted perhaps.

There's elements of the OP's post worthy of exploring further, but taken in its entirety it's only fit for the conspiracy forum.

28064212 wrote: »

They're making fun because the opening argument is absurd. There is a valid discussion to be had around attitudes towards sex, but the OP did not start that discussion. The OP claims there is a large group of women who have a formal agreement (i.e. a cartel) about how to act in order to secure certain behaviour. That belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum

then why hide behind fun. i did not take it to be a formal agreement when he said cartel though i know what cartel means. i understood him to be just using the expression for want of a better one

alyssum wrote: »

then why hide behind fun

Ridicule ≠ hiding

28064212 wrote: »

Ridicule ≠ hiding

??? what is ≠

alyssum wrote: »

??? what is ≠

Not equal

28064212 wrote: »

Not equal

i think t is. it is a type of strawman

alyssum wrote: »

i think t is. it is a type of strawman

It's really not. The OP hypothesised that a large group of women were involved in a conspiracy. Femme_Fatale ridiculed them by querying how such a conspiracy might be organised. It's directly attacking the absurdity of the original position

28064212 wrote: »

It's really not. The OP hypothesised that a large group of women were involved in a conspiracy. Femme_Fatale ridiculed them by querying how such a conspiracy might be organised. It's directly attacking the absurdity of the original position

I disagree i think it is pretty weak counter argument

alyssum wrote: »

I disagree i think it is pretty weak counter argument

Oh it's pretty weak all right. However, given the absence of any legitimate argument in the OP, it's all that's needed to completely destroy it

alyssum wrote: »

I disagree i think it is pretty weak counter argument

It's not meant to be a counter-argument, it's meant to show up how utterly ludicrous what the site-banned OP has said (a global cartel between women - really?) is.

In a nutshell, the post translates as "Women are bitches for not fancying me and giving me the sex I'm entitled to, therefore I'll come up with some outlandish theory rather than accepting they don't fancy me and working on my self confidence and improving where I'm going wrong."

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's not meant to be a counter-argument, it's meant to show up how utterly ludicrous what the site-banned OP has said (a global cartel between women - really?) is.

In a nutshell, the post translates as "Women are bitches for not fancying me and giving me the sex I'm entitled to, therefore I'll come up with some outlandish theory rather than accepting they don't fancy me and working on my self confidence and improving where I'm going wrong."

i could be wrong i understood him to only use cartel as a for want of better word
anyway self confidence won't make them fancy him if they don't
he is site banned?

alyssum wrote: »

he is site banned?

Yeh. Probably because of all the thinly-veiled misogynistic stuff he was posting. It's hard seeing that stuff being posted if you're a woman. I know you can avoid it, but it's only avoidable to a point.

Someone (male or female) being comfortable in their own skin is attractive.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yeh. Probably because of all the thinly-veiled misogynistic stuff he was posting. It's hard seeing that stuff being posted if you're a woman. I know you can avoid it, but it's only avoidable to a point.

Someone (male or female) being comfortable in their own skin is attractive.

i have not seen the others stuff

in case there is any truth in it generally not aimed at you personally?

Someone (male or female) being comfortable in their own skin is attractive

not necessarily

mawk

Surely it's more of an oligopoly than a cartel.
Language matters when you are trying to look sane

mawk

Surely it's more of an oligopoly than a cartel.
Language matters when you are trying to look sane

alyssum wrote: »

in case there is any truth?

No, because hatred and making baseless assumptions and stating notions/feelings as fact isn't the way to go about things. If a person has a controversial opinion, it's not what they say, it's the way they say it.

I would say it's more that there isn't any truth to it that gets women's backs up.

alyssum wrote: »

i could be wrong i understood him to only use cartel as a for want of better word

He uses the word cartel, and then goes on to describe a formal arrangement, where women actively discuss how to use their sexuality to give them power. That's a cartel. And it is an absurd argument.

Are you defending the argument? Do you think there is a subsection of women who have an agreement to keep sex scarce in order to subjugate men?

28064212 wrote: »

He uses the word cartel, and then goes on to describe a formal arrangement, where women actively discuss how to use their sexuality to give them power. That's a cartel. And it is an absurd argument.

Are you defending the argument? Do you think there is a subsection of women who have an agreement to keep sex scarce in order to subjugate men?

I do not know. I understood him to mean women and their friends as distinct from, say, a ltd company or more formal arrangement as would be in a conspiracy

[Deleted User]

Tom M wrote: »

What do you think of this?

I think they're just not that into you.

mawk

Surely it's more of an oligopoly than a cartel.
Language matters when you are trying to look sane

[Deleted User]

mawk wrote: »

Surely it's more of an oligopoly than a cartel.
Language matters when you are trying to look sane

So does repetition.

johnnyskeleton

How do sharia law societies for into this theory?

Wibbs

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How do sharia law societies for into this theory?

One might argue that such patriarchal societies are controlling women's reproductive options precisely because they believe much of what the OP was suggesting.

I think the debate is being mired down by the use of the word "cartel", suggesting a daft conspiracy of women behind closed doors deciding this stuff to keep poor men in some sort of sexual chains. If we dismiss that for the daftness it is, what about other aspects of the topic?

IE is there an inbuilt evolution selected benefit for women to restrict reproductive access? Clearly there are differences in reproductive strategies between the sexes. Women have a limited number of offspring they can have compared to men. They also have far more to lose in the very real dangers of pregnancy and birth(in the past it was by far the commonest cause of death for women of reproductive age). Plus they require resources while in the late stages of pregnancy and until offspring are weaned(or at least have done for the vast majority of time humans have been around). A man can get a woman pregnant and walk away, a woman who is pregnant can't walk away. It makes good sense for women to be more sexually "fussy" and to restrict sexual access to "suitable" men and even to keep said man guessing/interested until the child is weaned*.

The background meme of "sex is hard to get if you're a man" would naturally be of benefit to women in this. The scarcer any commodity appears to be the higher value it is and the "seller" of such a commodity would be of higher value too. I'd call this the "De Beers" effect. Diamonds are actually quite common, but because De Beers restricts the numbers getting to market they have assumed a higher value than they actually have. Of course De Beers do this deliberately. Women are not sitting in fancy boardrooms discussing restricting sex. :pac::pac:

Regarding patriarchal societies like Sharia. Such societies have a great fear of women's sexuality and reproduction, so seek to control it. This has been a common thread in many societies since the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago. When property and land become such large commodities, the passing on of same across family generations becomes important. Doubly so for males as until the last few decades no man could be absolutely sure any child was his, whereas women always knew. "Bastard" and "Cuckold" were very insulting terms. So how does such a patriarchal society reduce this fear? Control women's sexuality and reproduction. Marry virgins(which suddenly becomes a desired state) and hide them away, restrict their movements thereby increasing a mans chances that any offspring will be his.

That all said the area of sexuality/reproduction in humans is incredibly complex. We're about the most complex species there is in this. Throw in reliable contraception in the last few decades and all bets are off really.

*Some have even suggested that humans have a reproductive cycle of about 3-4 years. A "honeymoon period" which ensures interest in both sexes to keep high long enough for any offspring to be weaned.