I've known a number of whores in my life. I find them fascinating
Simp. Sex workers aren't human, nothing those exploitative shitbags do or say is useful to society. And that's not a fucking Rule 16.
Also, we should make it legal so we can tax the bastards 90% of their earnings and make them ineligible for all unemployment.
I don't know why people don't come up with answers to these kinds of people. Women want sex work, fine. But as it's an embarrassment to society for them to make even minimum wage, we tax them to death and make them ineligible for welfare. If you're caught hiding it, 18 years in jail.
I disagree. Anyone who can associate with "people" who are lower than cockroaches definitely has something wrong with them.
But they aren't and it's an insult to humanity to consider them so. Exploiting broken men for money isn't a job.
I don't consider it voluntary, it's more coerced. If feminist women break the self-worth of boys and then women profit off the exploitation of them as adults, how is that not questionable?
Does not that imply there have been broken men forever, world's oldest profession after all? The ancient world certainly didn't have feminism, did it?
I've had issues trying to simultaneously understand both prudish modern attitudes towards compensated fucking while at the same time understand modern simp culture (which I'd more easily accept is exploitation of broken men).
The world is fucked up. There are mentally ill people, damaged people, evil people, and irreparably fucked up people walking around us each and every day.
While I do agree with most of your central thesis around these parts, I disagree vehemently with you here. Of course these women in question are exploiting men and of course I find it questionable, but I can't disagree with the other guy that it's interesting precisely for those reasons.
How are we ever going to get past it and grow if we don't have good researchers studying the hows and whys?
I called you unhinged in a deleted post, because I thought you said 'and make them ineligible for all employment', which would be reprehensible.
Come on though, 90% tax for exchanging money for sex? That's some oppressive bullshit. We live in a world where liars, tyrants and marxists collude to oppress and destroy us, and you want to use the state to crush people for engaging in voluntary transactions? You can make the argument that sex work isn't good for society but they're not directly hurting anyone.
Yeah, I've seen your reasoning that it's 'coerced', but that's asinine. Women as a general demographic are privileged, spoiled, have a heavy ingroup bias and enable their own, which causes all sorts of problems for society and men specifically, but they're not a monolithic organization wherein all or even most women collude to exploit and harm men.
For one thing, that kind of argument sounds far too much like the 'men/white people all benefit from systemic sexism/racism so they're all guilty' sophistry for my liking.
For another, having one branch break men down so the other can charge them for sex would require a greater understanding of cause and effect than feminists are generally capable of.
that kind of argument sounds far too much like the 'men/white people all benefit from systemic sexism/racism so they're all guilty' sophistry for my liking.
Because that argument, like everything else women create as an argument, is projection.
Simp. Sex workers aren't human, nothing those exploitative shitbags do or say is useful to society. And that's not a fucking Rule 16.
Also, we should make it legal so we can tax the bastards 90% of their earnings and make them ineligible for all unemployment.
I don't know why people don't come up with answers to these kinds of people. Women want sex work, fine. But as it's an embarrassment to society for them to make even minimum wage, we tax them to death and make them ineligible for welfare. If you're caught hiding it, 18 years in jail.
I'm not a simp just because I find sex work to be interesting as a curiosity, you dumbfuck.
They literally are. You're so fucking weird. My comment was in general agreement with the spirit of your post and yet you attack me.
They provide a service in exchange for a fee as part of a voluntary exchange. It is the very definition of a useful service.
I disagree. Anyone who can associate with "people" who are lower than cockroaches definitely has something wrong with them.
But they aren't and it's an insult to humanity to consider them so. Exploiting broken men for money isn't a job.
I don't consider it voluntary, it's more coerced. If feminist women break the self-worth of boys and then women profit off the exploitation of them as adults, how is that not questionable?
Does not that imply there have been broken men forever, world's oldest profession after all? The ancient world certainly didn't have feminism, did it?
I've had issues trying to simultaneously understand both prudish modern attitudes towards compensated fucking while at the same time understand modern simp culture (which I'd more easily accept is exploitation of broken men).
You choose to die on some weird hills, Imp.
The world is fucked up. There are mentally ill people, damaged people, evil people, and irreparably fucked up people walking around us each and every day.
While I do agree with most of your central thesis around these parts, I disagree vehemently with you here. Of course these women in question are exploiting men and of course I find it questionable, but I can't disagree with the other guy that it's interesting precisely for those reasons.
How are we ever going to get past it and grow if we don't have good researchers studying the hows and whys?
I do, but I believe strongly in what I say.
What is there to study? They hate men so they exploit them. It's really simple.
I called you unhinged in a deleted post, because I thought you said 'and make them ineligible for all employment', which would be reprehensible.
Come on though, 90% tax for exchanging money for sex? That's some oppressive bullshit. We live in a world where liars, tyrants and marxists collude to oppress and destroy us, and you want to use the state to crush people for engaging in voluntary transactions? You can make the argument that sex work isn't good for society but they're not directly hurting anyone.
Yeah, I've seen your reasoning that it's 'coerced', but that's asinine. Women as a general demographic are privileged, spoiled, have a heavy ingroup bias and enable their own, which causes all sorts of problems for society and men specifically, but they're not a monolithic organization wherein all or even most women collude to exploit and harm men.
For one thing, that kind of argument sounds far too much like the 'men/white people all benefit from systemic sexism/racism so they're all guilty' sophistry for my liking.
For another, having one branch break men down so the other can charge them for sex would require a greater understanding of cause and effect than feminists are generally capable of.
Because that argument, like everything else women create as an argument, is projection.