More Random Thoughts

Today’s Post is going to be a bit of a (semi-)random link dump, with some commentary thrown in. You might notice a common theme or two.

I.

The Truth will set you free… but lies will get you thrown in the slammer. At least, it will get you thrown in jail if you lie to the police and waste their resources:

AN ENNISKILLEN mother-of-two who lied to police about being gang raped by three Lithuanian men because she didn’t want her husband to find out she was having an affair has been jailed for three months.

33-year-old Magdalena Brojek told police and her husband that she was abducted by three foreign men and raped at an unknown address.

Brojek, of The Sidings, Breandrum, Enniskillen, pleaded guilty to a single charge of wasting police time by making a false report when she appeared before Enniskillen Magistrates Court.

While part of me is glad to know this woman is being punished for her lies, another part realizes that it isn’t the nature of her lie which got her in trouble with the police, but the fact that her lie cost the police money. Of course, if you are a minor then you get away with just a slap on the wrist. Because she was only 15, and because the article hints at some serious problems she had, I suppose I can live with her receiving such a pathetic punishment.

However, that would change entirely if someone innocent had been named as the rapist. If you are old enough to know how to allege a rape against someone on your own, then you are old enough to pay the price. And if you falsely accuse a specific individual of raping you, then as far as I’m concerned you should spend as much time in prison as the victim of your fraud would have if convicted.

II.

Lots of folks are getting ready in Brazil for the World Cup. Prostitutes are no exception to this.

So what are Brazil’s sex workers doing to prepare for increased traffic during the World Cup? At the top of the list: learning English. There will be six matches played at the city’s Mineirão stadium, and according to Laura Mario Do Espirito Santo — a founding member of Aprosmig, a union for prostitutes within the state of Minas Gerais — “[English] gets you ahead.”

For Santo and the members of Aprosmig, pride is huge. They are proud of their profession and the independence it provides them. They can pay their bills and support their children with the money they make, and they don’t have to rely on anybody else. “I never asked anyone for anything,” says Santos, “…why should I be ashamed? Why should any of us?” There is even an annual Miss Prostitute pageant that Santos hopes will aid in diminishing prejudice against the profession. However, she says, “There is still much prejudice though, especially from housewives because their husbands come to us.”
This topic can lend itself to all sorts of discussion, which I’m sure will surprise no one. Prostitution has had an interesting history throughout Christianity. Many of the early fathers of the Church argued against outlawing it, stating that to do so would risk social upheaval. They knew that without an outlet, the male sex drive can be a dangerous thing. Of course, there is a lot to be said about why it wouldn’t be checked otherwise, but that is a topic of another day. Anyways, in most Christian countries, until the last century or two, prostitution wasn’t illegal. Oftentimes it was permitted for the tax revenues it brought to local authorities. And it was also quite common and prolific as well. With all of that established, there are two things I want to focus on.
The first concerns the last line that I quoted from the article, about husbands visiting prostitutes and housewives being angered by this. Since this seems to be an issue or a source of contention I suspect that it is common for married men to visit prostitutes in Brazil. This suggests several things- wives letting themselves go, older couples were the husband wants a younger lover, and sexual denial by wives. But most of all, it hints at the strong possibility of an active Madonna/Whore complex down in Brazil.
Which makes me wonder if prostitution is a key component of any society suffering from that complex. I would note that the M/W complex used to be prevalent in the West, and even here in America. But it died out long ago. And it seems to have died out at the same time that prostitution started to be cracked down upon, especially here in the US. If there is a causal link between the two, then I think it represents a strong argument against decriminalizing prostitution. I suppose the law could be set up so that it isn’t legal for married men, such as was done in much of medieval  Europe, but I don’t think that really fixes the problem. After all, the problem isn’t that they visit prostitutes after they marry, it is that they want to visit prostitutes after they marry.
The second thing that concerns me are these two lines:
They are proud of their profession and the independence it provides them. They can pay their bills and support their children with the money they make, and they don’t have to rely on anybody else.
There are a number of men around the ‘sphere who argue that decriminalizing prostitution will be a major step towards combating feminism. I’m not so certain of this. Prostitution provides women with independence from any kind of lasting obligation to men. In fact, in some respects it is a great escape- they only need fleeting contacts/contracts with men, and after that they are own their own. Why would you need a husband when you can pay your own bills and support yourself? Why have the hassle of legal ties with another man? You certainly don’t need a husband for children, heck, your clients can satisfy that demand.
As far as I can tell prostitution “empowers” women in a manner that will support feminist tendencies. I suppose it would be possible to construct a system around the institution to control that influence, mostly by restricting the kind of influence prostitutes and their money would have outside that respective field. But absent such a system, I see nothing but trouble. The problem with idea of decriminalizing prostitution now is that no such system is in place. And no such system is likely to be formed at the same time, either. Counting on prostitution to weaken feminism to the point where you can then build a system to contain the feminism it creates just doesn’t quite work out. Meaning that there might be other, valid reasons to decriminalize prostitution, but fighting feminism is not one of them.

III.

Some of you might have heard of the rash of articles by feminists lately arguing that women need to stop putting off having children. This piece by Kirstie Allsopp is one of them.  Lest anyone get any ideas that women, feminists even, are starting to wise up to the faults in their beliefs, think again. Yes, there is a lot of sense in what they have to say. An example:

“Women are being let down by the system. We should speak honestly and frankly about fertility and the fact it falls off a cliff when you’re 35. We should talk openly about university and whether going when you’re young, when we live so much longer, is really the way forward.

“At the moment, women have 15 years to go to university, get their career on track, try and buy a home and have a baby. That is a hell of a lot to ask someone. As a passionate feminist, I feel we have not been honest enough with women about this issue.”

Allsopp is fully aware that there are people who will find her opinions grating, preaching as she is from a fabulous central London home. “But I don’t say it from a position of smugness. I only whistled in there by a miracle when it came to children. This isn’t something I’ve just decided in an arbitrary way. [Fertility] is the one thing we can’t change. Some of the greatest pain that I have seen among friends is the struggle to have a child. It wasn’t all people who couldn’t start early enough because they hadn’t met the right person.

This is a lot more sense that you normally find in a feminist, but don’t be fooled. There is nothing traditional minded about this at all. Another snippet:

“I don’t have a girl, but if I did I’d be saying ‘Darling, do you know what? Don’t go to university. Start work straight after school, stay at home, save up your deposit – I’ll help you, let’s get you into a flat. And then we can find you a nice boyfriend and you can have a baby by the time you’re 27.”

Notice how marriage has no place in that nice little life plan. Nor anything resembling a stable family household or the like. Nope this is pure, unadultered female entitlement at work. Oh there is room for romance, and for experiencing life to the fullest later on, and for children. But you won’t find any room for female obligations to men. Far from it. Ms. Allsop, and yes, she isn’t married (and has had two bastard children with her “partner”), is merely trying to preserve female primacy. She knows that women are at a huge disadvantage compared to men in terms of fertility, something which offends her delicate feminist sensibilities. So even as she argues for women to start having children sooner, she wants to make men pay for their biological advantage:

“But there is a huge inequality, which is that women have this time pressure that men don’t have. And I think if you’re a man of 25 and you’re with a woman of 25, and you really love her, then you have a responsibility to say: ‘Let’s do it now.’ I was lucky with Ben that he absolutely wanted more children immediately and he was very committed to that. But men need to know, men need to be taught in school that there is a responsibility, that if you love someone, decide if you want to have a child with that person or not.”

Note that we have, as is the norm in the present age, female privilege and male responsibility. The man here has responsibility, but does he gain anything in return? Well, children, of course. That he is now financially responsible for. Oh wait, that’s more responsibility on the man. Women love to decry men for “objectifying women.” But that is mere projection. The truth is that it is women who do most of the objectifying- seeing men as walking ATMs or walking sperm banks, and sometimes both if they are lucky. Not to mention that they secretly long to be objectified in return.

Don’t be fooled by this sudden “change of heart” on the part of feminists. It isn’t a sudden epiphany on their part. They still acknowledge only as much reality as they are forced to. Rather, this is an attempt to  preserve the feminist system that has been built in the West. After all, if all the strong, proud, independent women out there aren’t having children, then who is? Why, those pesky religious folks who stand for everything feminism is against. We can’t have them overturning the system now, can? Setting that aside, delaying children creates a risk that too many women won’t be able to have it all. And, as Ms. Allsop points out, that is letting women down. Preserving society? Not important. Making sure that women can live out their perfect life script? The core value of Western Society.

IV.

Mrs. ktc helpfully reminded me of Robert Frost’s take on diplomacy:

A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman’s birthday but never remembers her age

This got me thinking (yes, I know, a dangerous thing), and I applied some Game concepts to create a corollary to this:

A player is a man who always forgets a woman’s birthday but never forgets her age

I’m sure that someone else has already created something similar, or even exactly the same, but I wanted to express this nonetheless. Some personal observations I have made recently have reminded me of the stark truth that attractiveness trumps all else when it comes to women interacting with me. For “players” it is often the case that they know only what matters to them about a woman -such as her age- and know nothing (and don’t care to find out) about what doesn’t matter- such as her birthday. And why not? As long as he is attractive to her, pretty much all other failings are simply ignored by the woman. In an interesting twist of fate, the female Hamster and the male player are often in agreement. Fancy that.

Fin

Advertisements

26 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Christianity, Feminism, Marriage, Red Pill, Sex, Sin, Women

26 responses to “More Random Thoughts

  1. Novaseeker

    On prostitution, it’s a bit complex. On the one hand, I agree in that I don’t think that legalizing prostitution would have the impact that men’s advocates of this seem to think. Largely, prostitution is currently “de facto” legal, in that enforcement of most prostitution, which now takes place over the internet and without pimps and madams and so forth, is very sparse. Pretty much lots of prostitution is taking place in plain sight without much law enforcement at all — it’s de facto tolerated as long as it doesn’t involve pimps, madams, trafficking or street prostitution. So I’m not sure making it legal formally would change very much in how it works today, with the context being that the internet has made much more prostitution private and therefore not much of a focus of law enforcement. Would there be marginally more women participating if it were formally legal? Yes, probably, but only in a marginal sense. Which brings me to my second point.

    There will always only be a marginal number of women who participate in prostitution voluntarily. By “voluntarily” I mean a woman who decides that she could make a living in Job X or by being a hooker and rationally chooses to become a hooker — i.e., not due to lifestyle/addiction problems that preclude Job X working out, or lack of opportunities for Job X and so on. Now, there *are* such women who do choose to be hookers voluntarily, and the rise of internet prostitution has certainly increased their number (the requirement of using a pimp likely screened out many of these before the rise of internet prostitution), but it’s still a very small number of women. Almost all women who are not in some way damaged will not rent access to their bodies for sex if they have any other viable option.

    The trouble is that the advocates for legalization tend to be the voluntary sorts who make bad examples. So, take someone who is a med student who hooks on the weekends for lifestyle cash. She does it for the cash, but not involuntarily (most of her friends in the same financial boat do not hook for the extra cash). She likely has a naturally high socio-sexuality and a long sexual history, and her own mental and emotional relationship with sex is outlierish when compared to most women. Now, she would love it to be legalized, because that would reduce any risk she has of getting arrested for hooking — as low and as manageable as that risk is. But she still doesn’t want to be known as a “sex worker”. She’s a med student, and a few years from now she will be someone’s kids’ pediatrician or something. But she’d like it legal to reduce some of her risks. That sounds reasonable to people. But she isn’t the typical hooker. The typical hooker is not the high priced ones on the internet — who do tend to be more of the “choice hooker” variety, but not all of them — but the cheaper ones who are on the street or who still do work with pimps and madams and so on and are subject to being exploited and so on. These would also like it legalized, but make for a much less sympathetic picture, and also tend not to be “out there” as far as sex worker advocacy goes.

    Ultimately, because I think that the increase in the number of women who would be involved with prostitution likely would only be marginally higher under a legalized regime, I don’t think it would have much of an impact. Most women are not going to want to hook, and the ones who do want to hook are mostly hooking now, because the internet lets them do it without a pimp and with low risk of law enforcement anyway. It’s possible that on the margins legalization of prostitution could continue to erode away at public mores concerning sex, but again I’d see that as only being marginally the case. Again, because prostitution is already de facto tolerated as long as it is of the internet call girl variety.

  2. anonimice

    Sounds like what laidNYC had: love you forever till you turn 30.

  3. Excellent analysis as always, Novaseeker.

  4. Guest

    “At the moment, women have 15 years to go to university, get their career on track, try and buy a home and have a baby. That is a hell of a lot to ask someone.”

    This solipsistic woman doesn’t even see her own entitlement, especially considering the fact that she would expect all those same things from men to happen in less than 5-10 years. Amazing!

  5. If prostitution really empowers women in a way that supports feminist tendencies, how was it able to co-exist for centuries alongside patriarchy without, for all that time, promoting feminism?

    Even the Roman Empire tolerated prostitution; no-one would mistake it for a feminist society.

    And European feminists, esp. French and German ones, are anti-prostitution.

    The best argument for legalized prostitution from a pragmatist POV is that having brothels means keeping women off the street, where they are not only less safe from predators, but also are a blight on a neighbourhood (if in commercial areas; they hurt local businesses; if in residential areas, they bring unwanted people into them; either way, they are harmful to the areas they are in). Encourage them to be indoors, out of sight, as well as harms’ way.

    IMO, such considerations are more important than, on the one hand, either moralistic opposition, or, on the other hand, libertine libertarian enthusiasm in favour.

    Manosphere arguments don’t even enter into my consideration. But hey, I suppose if wives know their husbands can get it elsewhere, it might make them behave better towards them – IIRC that’s what Vanessa (Alte) used to argue, back in the day, contrasting how women treat their husbands in Germany – where prostitution has been legal – to how American women treat theirs.

    So, there’s some manosphere pragmatism, as well. Maybe not moral, but if it motivates wives to be less bitchy, and not withhold sex from their husbands so much, why the hell not.

    If a husband wants to visit a whore after he’s married, there’s probably problems with his marriage; i.e. his wife withholding sex from him. Don’t blame him for her being a bitch. Not that such would justify his sinning in procuring a whore’s services; just that while wrong, it wouldn’t be completely non-understandable.

  6. mdavid

    Good post on the rash of feminist fertility angst. I read the same article and didn’t pick up on at least half of what you did. I’m getting soft, methinks.

    I suspect that it is common for married men to visit prostitutes in Brazil. This suggests several things- wives letting themselves go, older couples were the husband wants a younger lover, and sexual. But most of all, it hints at the strong possibility of an active Madonna/Whore complex down in Brazil.

    I would argue it suggests something different: that South America (& southern Europe) have matriarchal families (that is, the woman is the family anchor and men are only tangentially involved with children). One can see this in the double surname is required by law in SA & Spain. Germanic-style patriarchy of old Europe evolved to aggressively protect a man’s rights regarding children and family using rule of law to remove some of the female’s natural control of the family. English (Saxon) culture was how this idea has come to us today…but multiculturalism has nearly wiped this out by now, methinks.

    I would argue that the primary thing that keeps a man coming home for sex is having a leadership role within his home, and not being a mere accessory. Few cultures have been able to adapt this for long (Jews being the oldest probably). Cultures that do pull it off usually get rich and powerful…but a reversion to the mean usually follows since it’s a lot more historic and natural to live in a matriarchal, tribal culture.

  7. femininebutnotfeminist

    “I suppose the law could be set up so that it isn’t legal for married men…..”

    If this happened, would it not give men yet another reason to never get married? Or at least, some men (but certainly not all)?

    “There are a number of men around the ‘sphere who argue that decriminalizing prostitution will be a major step towards combating feminism.”

    I don’t read many ‘sphere blogs and have never seen this being talked about, so I don’t understand how decriminalizing prostitution could help any. What is their reasoning behind this?

  8. @ mdavid

    That is an interesting perspective and theory. Not sure that I agree, but always good to have a different view.

  9. @ FBNF

    If this happened, would it not give men yet another reason to never get married? Or at least, some men (but certainly not all)?

    Yes, it would in fact lead a number of men to not get married. Which is why some argue for it. It isn’t exactly Christian men who make that argument, but rather secular ones. They think that legalized prostitution would help make marriage better, because it would force wives to step up their game, or would obviate much of the need for it.

    The argument against feminism essentially states that by legalizing prostitution you undercut a lot of feminist initiatives. Men would no longer need to worry about a lot of the fears that feminism has created: false rape accusations, frivorces, etc. Plus it would get the sex-positive feminists fighting against the all-sex-is-rape feminists.

    I don’t really think it is there, to be honest. Feminists would just find another way to make things fit their agenda. And if it would undermine their agenda, you better believe they would fight against it.

    That is a crude attempt to explain their logic. I will see if I can find a link or two to better explanations.

  10. Novaseeker

    The idea they have about legalization is what Donal says — it would in their mind create pressure on the sex market price for non-prostitutes, by lowering it due to increased competition from prostitutes. In other words, it’s a way of breaking the “sex cartel” some like to talk about (whereby women have a monopoly on controlling heterosexual male sexual access, and therefore act like a commodities cartel in ensuring a sufficiently high price is maintained for all suppliers — ie, women).

    I think any effect would be marginal for the reasons I outlined above — namely that it’s already basically legal (in terms of going unenforced), in most instances, and so any effect formal legalization would have would be incremental and marginal. And what we see with the current impact is that while it does have some marginal impact on the sex market by taking men out of it (reducing demand slightly), the overarching story is that men and women both (rightly) view paid sex and unpaid sex as being two completely different things, such that legalizing one, which marginally increases the supply of one of them, doesn’t have that much of an impact on the other. In other words, just because more women can freely hook on the internet without pimps doesn’t mean that it is easier for guys to get laid for free due to competition from hookers. It doesn’t work that way, because the two things (paid sex and unpaid sex) are viewed as being fundamentally different by almost all market participants (including, of course, the prostitutes themselves).

    So I remain quite skeptical of the claim made about the impact on the “sex cartel” and the “pricing” of unpaid sex in the SMP.

  11. mdavid

    DG, That is an interesting perspective and theory…

    I’m not smart enough to have invented it. Some books that introduced me to the idea: The Garbage Generation and Family and Civilization

  12. My comment is still stuck in moderation, I see.

  13. @ Novaseeker

    “Sex Cartel” is the phrase I was looking for but couldn’t find. Thanks.

  14. Retrenched

    ‘A player is a man who always forgets a woman’s birthday but never forgets her age’

    Heh, I remember going to a party as a young man with a couple of friends and we all found girls to chat with. I was the only one who remembered my girl’s name; I was also the only one who didn’t get laid that night.

  15. femininebutnotfeminist

    @ Donal and Novaseeker,

    That pretty much makes sense, thanks. Like both of you, I don’t agree that legalizing prostitution would help matters any. Perhaps in a different time and place, when feminism wasn’t as rampant as it is now, it might have encouraged some women to not neglect their husbands in those ways you mention, but likely not today. Especially (but not limited to) the fact that feminist women can legally leave their husbands and survive on their own. Since they actually want independence from men anyway (for reasons I’ve never understood and therefore can’t elaborate on) they have few reasons compelling enough to stick around anymore.

  16. Guest

    @FBNF

    “Since they actually want independence from men anyway (for reasons I’ve never understood and therefore can’t elaborate on) they have few reasons compelling enough to stick around anymore.”

    “Independence” is based on pride – an overdeveloped opinion of self, and a refusal to submit to authority.

    Pride – the sin all women have without even realizing it – is praised in society as a virtue rather than a vice. Pride tells women to elevate themselves and their lives to accomplish their own desires and goals in life at the expense of honoring God, their men, and others around them.

    The bible says that if we lose our lives here, then we will find new life with Him in Heaven, but if we save our lives here, then we will lose our lives with God, and thus lose eternal life with Him in Heaven.

    There is a one, straight, wide road, which most people – even most “Christians”/Churchians – choose to take, because it is easier, safer, convenient, and “happier.” Then there is a different, smaller road that bends, and is much more difficult to navigate, but it leads to eternal life.

    What the bible calls “pride,” society calls “proper, high self-esteem.”
    What the bible calls “humility,” society sometimes calls “low self-esteem.”

    Eve wanted to be “like God” because she wanted the “happiness, freedom, and liberation” of being her own “independent” “goddess,” who could do whatever she wanted, whenever she wanted, without being held to anyone’s (even God’s) standards of conduct – even when those standards were in her own best interest that would bring her a long life in God’s presence and peace with the affections of her own husband.

    A woman’s desire for “Independence” is like a cell phone that says to it’s own power charger, “Hey, I don’t need you anymore! I have my own power source now with my fancy new battery!,” ………….until that battery runs out, and the phone is forced unwillingly to come back to reality, crawling manipulatively back to it’s old “boring” charger again to take more energy from it (use it as a disposable resource, not an equally valuable entity of its own.) The phone might say (rarely), “Thank you! I really appreciate your help with that! I could not have ever done that on my own!,” but then that phone will inevitably leave again as if it could be happy, function, and live forever on its own. The phone never realizes all the unique qualities, design, and purpose that the power charger has on its own. To the phone, it is just an inconvenient stop at the gas station along the highway to bigger, better, more exciting things elsewhere. But, chargers are designed to understand and live within the finite parameters of reality, and make difficult, dangerous things both possible and safe – things that would otherwise be impossible and deadly were phones to be “independent” and attemp to do those things on their own. A phone thinks it is capable of conquering the world on its own…….until that power supply decides to stop giving any power away. Then what? Back to reality!

    What women call “Independence” isn’t even true independence, because they refuse to see and acknowledge all the millions of men who work behind-the-scenes in dangerous, unglamourous, unappreciated jobs to deliver all the conveniences women take for granted.

    Nearly 100% of everything women look at and touch every moment of every day was thought of, invented, designed, created, tested, engineered, manufactured, built, assembled, packaged, loaded, shipped, delivered, unloaded, moved, setup, arranged, and sold by men to improve the modern comforts and lifestyles that women think of unrealistically as “normal.” And that doesn’t even factor in all the efforts of the men who recycle/reuse the products/materials that women don’t want anymore.

    Women pridefully call themselves “fabulous” when they sit in their expensive houses, on their large, comfy sofas, drinking from fancy glasses of wine, and gossiping about all the “stupid” men in their lives. They don’t even see the irony that men designed, built, and delivered all those things they are using the very moments they gossip about and mock their men.

    Men are the ones who made it possible and safe for women to sit in their comfortable, air-conditioned, window-view offices, playing with the internet, computers, phones, desks, copy machines, and all the other office furniture and supplies they use daily – all of which were invented, made, delivered, and installed by men.

    So, the next time a woman wants to wait for her next government-supplied child-support check, and claim she is “Independent,” even as she sips her vanilla latte, buys “cute” new shoes online, and pins new photos to her Pinterest account, she should be forced to realize that her idea of being “Independent” is not based on any form of objective reality.

    What if men were to stop doing all these things for women?
    What if every reason women have to avoid commitment to men is one more reason we men have for refusing any further commitment to them?

    [DG: This is an epic rant. Well done. Great phone/charger analogy.]

  17. femininebutnotfeminist

    @ Guest,

    All very good points. I don’t think I’ve ever heard it described that way before. In answer to your last paragraph, I would say that if that happened, society would fall apart, the women who think they are independent would (ironically) blame men, or would finally realize everything you said and pretend to humbly need men again so that they (men) could get things fixed, so that they (women) could get back on top of the world (in their own minds at least). Would you be opposed to me using this comment to write up a post one of these days? I would give you full credit for it and quote you directly. (I’m going to start my own blog when I get a chance very soon, and one of the things I’m gonna do is take what I’ve been learning from the ‘sphere and use it to teach other women -mostly younger ones and/or feminists- some things they need to understand, and this comment could be of help I think.)

  18. Guest

    @FBNF

    Sure!

    I do ask that you correct a couple of lines for me, please.

    “Pride – the sin all women have without even realizing it – is praised in society as a virtue rather than condemned as a vice.”

    “There is a one, straight, wide road, which most people – even most “Christians”/Churchians – choose to take, because it is easier, safer, convenient, and “happier,” but it leads to death.

    I also ask that you share a link to your blog when it is created, because I would love to read it!

  19. femininebutnotfeminist

    @ Guest,

    Awesome, thank you! 🙂

    And yes, I will update what you said as requested, and will link that post back here too. (It won’t be the first one I write since I have a handful swirling around in my head that I’m just dying to get out there, but it will be fairly close to the top of the list since it actually replaces one I planned to write). If you read around here often you will probably know pretty quick when I get it started, because I’m probably gonna put pingbacks all over the place of my first post just to get the word out and a bit of traffic.

    But anyways, thank you again!

  20. mdavid

    Guest, “Pride – the sin all women have without even realizing it…

    Might want to wordsmith this a bit. The very definition on sin (“missing the mark”) requires that we realize that the act was wrong. For example in Hebrew if you shoot and miss you’ve “sinned”. Spiritually, you have to have a target (that is, know you’ve done wrong) to perform a sin. You can also see this with Adam and Eve needing to eat of the tree of knowledge of good or evil before they can sin, or that animals and children below the age of reason can’t sin.

  21. “There are a number of men around the ‘sphere who argue that decriminalizing prostitution will be a major step towards combating feminism.”

    Well, it’s more simple than that.

    1. No man would be fined, jailed or otherwise legally punished for visiting prostitutes.
    2. Prostitutes would become cheaper.
    3. The average quality of prostitutes would rise, because it mostly tends to attract those women at the bottom of the female sexual hierarchy if it’s illegal and exists on the margins of society.

  22. “the overarching story is that men and women both (rightly) view paid sex and unpaid sex as being two completely different things”

    There’s no choice between paid sex and unpaid sex if you’re a beta. The only sex you have access to is paid sex.

  23. Pingback: There’s no such thing as an Independent Woman | Be Feminine, Not Feminist

  24. Feminine But Not Feminist

    @ Guest,

    Here’s the post we were talking about, the one with your comment. Thanks again for letting me use it!

    http://befemininenotfeminist.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/theres-no-such-thing-as-an-independent-woman/

  25. Feminine But Not Feminist

    Oh cool, it pingbacks automatically!

  26. @ FBNF

    I think that the default is to automatically do pingbacks in WP.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s