If legalized prostitution urged women to put more effort into their appearance and their behavior, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands would have top-notch female quality but apparently that's not the case. Stop believing legal hookers would improve your situation.

But aren't Dutch women pretty hot and making non-feminist choices? I recall that last year some feminist was angry about them choosing to be stay at home mothers too much. They must be doing something right if they're attracting that kind of flak.

(I've never known any Dutch women so I'm not speaking from personal experience here)

Quote: (05-29-2014 01:36 AM)Flint Wrote:  

If legalized prostitution would urge women to put more effort into their appearance and their behavior, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands would have top-notch female quality but apparently that's not the case. Stop believing legal hookers would improve your situation.

You would actually compare it to the alternative(like a controlled study would). Just because they look bad; does not mean they cant look worse.

Of course legal hookers improve the situation, it just is a question of how much.

Quote: (05-29-2014 02:15 AM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

Quote: (05-29-2014 01:36 AM)Flint Wrote:  

If legalized prostitution would urge women to put more effort into their appearance and their behavior, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands would have top-notch female quality but apparently that's not the case. Stop believing legal hookers would improve your situation.

You would actually compare it to the alternative(like a controlled study would). Just because they look bad; does not mean they cant look worse.

Of course legal hookers improve the situation, it just is a question of how much.

I don't believe that the effect considerable. Prostitution is illegal in Norway, Lithuania and Romania and women there look much better than in the above mentioned countries.

Also, just because you can legally go to a whore doesn't mean that it's socially acceptable. No German I know would ever admit that he goes to brothels, not even among other men. It gives you a bad rep.

Hookers are Pseudo-Legal here in Canada. Unless you get busted in a honey trap picking up girls on the street your likley in the green here. Facilities exist all across Canada, in Toronto many hotels make bank renting out a swaths of their rooms to agencies. Hell many Americans come up here to pay for it to escape the police state laws that exist down there towards p4p. As I've noted it has not helped Toronto one bit, the women continue to tank into gutters here at free fall speeds.

The only good place you could asses is a place where its culturally and socially acceptable to pay for sex or go to brothels. These places are rare, I assume Germany caters to tourists, not sure how many locals hit those places up. I've read on this forum that the famed Brothels in Brazil are kinda of a quirky thing that people just do just once as a means for fun, and not as much stigma is attached to it? Brazilian women (for now) are still feminine and sensual.

Once haggard old sex workers here in Toronto/Ontario push the Supreme Court to legalize it then maybe Toronto will be the test subject.

I argue "Higher" education has a more dire effect on the Sexual market place and women in general. Toronto is a highly educated city, most women here have some sort of Post-secondary, a University degree for women (at least) is the norm here. Women don't go to school to learn, they go to absorb stuff and regurgitate information, they largely fall prey to indoctrination and are easy to pump facts into even if dubious. Many women will take at least one Women's Studies class and many base the core of their liberal classes around them. After 4 years they are primed to slut it up, and get fat knowing that men around them will cringe and look the other way and still want to fuck them.

There was a reason why women were largely banned from the higher levels of education for most of history. Not all women are dense mirrors of course, some are capable of being able to access things, use logic, critical and critique methods in trying to carve out new ideas, but many are not. The average women is only elite in learning programmable skills and multi-tasking. The women is the elite secretary whom can be barked commands and do them at speed while doing other things at once, but ask her to conjure a new idea and she has hamster farts for days.

After school when a women gets thrown into the "real world" of her utopian urban bubble all she knows is the stuff she was fed in school. And she follows these new ideals she was fed and goes at them 100%.

Quote: (05-29-2014 03:00 AM)kosko Wrote:  

I argue "Higher" education has a more dire effect on the Sexual market place and women in general.

^ THIS.

I honestly don't care if women are educated. It's the fact that it seems to consistently make them incredibly-arrogant, and far, far overestimate their intelligence.

I surprised no one mention Asia yet. Even thought prostitutiom is illegal in many countries but it's socially acepptable, people even find it strange if you never try it at least once here. The girls are still femenine and looking for husband mostly but some parts are already corrupted by feminism.

Quote: (05-29-2014 03:32 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Quote: (05-29-2014 03:00 AM)kosko Wrote:  

I argue "Higher" education has a more dire effect on the Sexual market place and women in general.

^ THIS.

I honestly don't care if women are educated. It's the fact that it seems to consistently make them incredibly-arrogant, and far, far overestimate their intelligence.

I would say it makes them even dumber than before. Well, to be more accurate, dumber than they would be, if they didnt go to be "educated". I also prefer the word "schooled" as educated implies learning something useful(whereas schooling isnt usually useful)

I think the current institution style of schooling is ruining peoples brains. Both(edit: I typed both, before it occured to me to type "critical thinking"... oh well) intelligence, creativity, and critical thinking are going down the drain.

Quote: (05-29-2014 03:32 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Quote: (05-29-2014 03:00 AM)kosko Wrote:  

I argue "Higher" education has a more dire effect on the Sexual market place and women in general.

^ THIS.

I honestly don't care if women are educated. It's the fact that it seems to consistently make them incredibly-arrogant, and far, far overestimate their intelligence.

IQ is of course slanted - there are way more High IQ men and also more very low IQ men than women (65% of Mensa-level are men, top 5% of Mensa are over 90% men). Apart from that most women being even of equal IQ are waaaaay less interested in any intellectual, scientific or creative activity.

In a more positive world it would be OK for women to pursue an education after having gotten married in her prime and gotten a child. Starting a higher education at 25-28 would be fine - most women would be by far more happy with that kind of lifestyle.

Quote: (05-27-2014 10:31 AM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

Quote: (05-26-2014 10:38 PM)Daddy Wrote:  

Would you care to expand on that point? Because to me it's the opposite. We were monogamous for most of our history as humans, then just recently moved towards more polygamous societies.

Even the word monogamy is a recent invention. It only dates from the 1610s.

Human beings have never been monogamous and certainly are not today.

The only hold that monogamy has ever had over humanity has been in concept and dictat, certainly never in behaviour.

There is a breakdown of the evolution of it here - http://sexthreepointzero.org/

I've started reading the site your linked to. I just read the beginning to be honest.

That seems to me like someone's opinion, no offense intended. With what does this site backs up all its claims? Where's the science? I stopped at the part talking about property, when it was saying that humans had no concept of property in the beginning.

Just to point out a fact that is widely known among scientists: other primates had and still have multiple females, and they guard them. They will beat or kill anyone trying to mate with them. So not only they had some sense of property, but they also understood cuckoldery on an instinctive level. Humans are no exceptions.

So to quote your site :

"Due to the self-evident nature of child birth, women all throughout human history have always been able to have sex with any number of men without ever having to worry that the child they are raising somebody else’s child."

That does not make sense. Women couldn't have sex with any man they wanted, because at the beginning of human history when they were more ape-like, they were owned by the alpha males. Then when we evolved into different societies, polygamy couldn't be a good sexual model, because of high parental investment necessary for human babies.

What makes more sense is indeed monogamy with cheating on the side. So what do you base your statements on?

Quote: (06-07-2014 12:17 PM)Daddy Wrote:  

I've started reading the site your linked to. I just read the beginning to be honest.

That seems to me like someone's opinion, no offense intended. With what does this site backs up all its claims? Where's the science? I stopped at the part talking about property, when it was saying that humans had no concept of property in the beginning.

Just to point out a fact that is widely known among scientists: other primates had and still have multiple females, and they guard them.

You are making the same mistake that someone else made in this thread.

You are confusing concepts of property with competition over survival resources.

Mate guarding is 100 percent natural, sure. You only have to watch a nature documentary to know that.

Quote: (06-07-2014 12:17 PM)Daddy Wrote:  

"Due to the self-evident nature of child birth, women all throughout human history have always been able to have sex with any number of men without ever having to worry that the child they are raising somebody else’s child."

That does not make sense. Women couldn't have sex with any man they wanted, because at the beginning of human history when they were more ape-like, they were owned by the alpha males.

All that means is that alpha males got first pick. Why do you think that nature designed men but not women to feel sleepy after sex? Why do you think that men's penises are shaped like plungers at the end? Why do you think that most male sperm is designed to fight other sperm that it find or to block it?

We are designed for sperm competition and multiple partners. Read the book sperm wars if you want the science on that.

Quote: (06-07-2014 12:17 PM)Daddy Wrote:  

Then when we evolved into different societies, polygamy couldn't be a good sexual model, because of high parental investment necessary for human babies.

For almost all of human history we lived in tribes. Children were raised and cared for by the entire tribe. This is obviously a far more robust child raising model than the nuclear family which is both a high stress and high investment environment for child raising but which is also extremely fragile.

Legalized prostitution is worthless in itself. The only thing 'legal' does to any good thing is to sterilize it and make it more expensive.

It's the social acceptance that is the key. It makes no difference if prostitution is legal if a guy has to sneak close to the walls on his way to the whore house.

Socially accepted prostitution today is reserved for the rich only. Notice how the mainstream makes a huge distinction between the high class escort and the streetwalker. In the end, they both get fucked, but the escort has an image of evening dresses, cocktail lounges and Richard Gere. Therefore, every rich man has no personal qualms about calling an escort over. A regular joe on the other hand, has a lot of qualms about banging a prostitute, because he has been shamed out of doing so.

Now if you on the other hand, instead of the lame Bunny Ranch places, you had a stylish gentlemans club, a poker table or two, live music, a dresscode, wood panels, cigar smoke and the like and you simply allowed in 'freelancers' and had a couple of house 'staff', then you'd see a surge in the popularity of prostitution. The current product available to most men is just very poorly marketed. I bet you, I could make a modern day saloon that would bring prostitution to the masses

Quote: (06-07-2014 12:47 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

You are confusing concepts of property with competition over survival resources.

More like you're just arguing nomenclature. There's no difference between "survival resources" and "property." Property is just a logical outgrowth of "survival resources," and clearly there is hoarding in nature of the successful rich alpha males against the poor beta males. Whether is it territory or women, the concept is the same.

Provide a difference or no one is going to take you seriously.

Quote:Quote:

Mate guarding is 100 percent natural, sure. You only have to watch a nature documentary to know that.

Exactly, which is why "Sex 3.0" is really just nonsense. Polyamoury is bullshit, never has worked, and never will work.

Quote:Quote:

For almost all of human history we lived in tribes. Children were raised and cared for by the entire tribe. This is obviously a far more robust child raising model than the nuclear family which is both a high stress and high investment environment for child raising but which is also extremely fragile.

People still live in tribes today. Families are the central unit but families make communities and alliances with other families within cities or towns. This is in essence the basic tribal nature of man.

The very idea of community schools was built on the idea of people raising their children together, however, of course, schools today have been completely corrupted from their original intent.

Everything you've said about Sex 3.0 is a distinction without a difference. I stopped taking you seriously when you failed to answer the question of who raises children when he's got 2 Dads and 3 Moms.

Quote: (05-29-2014 03:40 AM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

I would say it makes them even dumber than before. Well, to be more accurate, dumber than they would be, if they didnt go to be "educated". I also prefer the word "schooled" as educated implies learning something useful(whereas schooling isnt usually useful)

I think the current institution style of schooling is ruining peoples brains. Both(edit: I typed both, before it occured to me to type "critical thinking"... oh well) intelligence, creativity, and critical thinking are going down the drain.

Good point.

It's easy to confuse education with consumerism. Legit education is awesome - teaches you how to think, learn a lot of cool things, etc, but legit education is so rare. Capitalistic consumerism has injected itself into EVERYTHING, which has essentially wiped out education.

It's consumerism that's driving the ego-driven, validation-seeking personalities these days of both men & women. Constant marketing, constant social media, constant displays of shit to make one seem popular and in the "incrowd."

We're done for. And the worst part of it is there can never be a revolution anymore for two reasons: 1) the tiny minority of people who realize that everything is wrong is growing smaller & smaller (most people are perfectly content to be right where they are), and 2) the government has gotten so strong and powerful that any revolutionist is labeled either a terrorist if there's any hint of violence or a mockery like Occupy Wall Street where the government & media just displayed pictures of dirty hippies rather than talk about the ideals they represented.

Quote: (06-07-2014 12:47 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

Quote: (06-07-2014 12:17 PM)Daddy Wrote:  

"Due to the self-evident nature of child birth, women all throughout human history have always been able to have sex with any number of men without ever having to worry that the child they are raising somebody else’s child."

That does not make sense. Women couldn't have sex with any man they wanted, because at the beginning of human history when they were more ape-like, they were owned by the alpha males.

All that means is that alpha males got first pick. Why do you think that nature designed men but not women to feel sleepy after sex? Why do you think that men's penises are shaped like plungers at the end? Why do you think that most male sperm is designed to fight other sperm that it find or to block it?

Alpha males not only got first pick, they got all the picks. They guarded their females with threats of deaths, and from what I remember most other primates don't share their bitches except bonobos. They wouldn't let any males approach their females, because then they would get pregnant, and their seeds wouldn't be spread as much.

We have evolved from this kind of society, but we retained some attributes from it. We have evolved from a mating strategy of shooting sperms into as many females as possible to a more monogamous mating strategy.

Some males evolved to be sneaky and impregnate females behind the alpha male's back. Some males have evolved to rape. Some women have evolved to use the cheating strategy of getting knocked up by alpha male and having it raised by the beta provider. But that doesn't mean that as a whole, societies were not built upon monogamy, with some cheating and raping.

Most of that I learned from The Moral Animal

Quote: (06-07-2014 12:47 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

Quote: (06-07-2014 12:17 PM)Daddy Wrote:  

Then when we evolved into different societies, polygamy couldn't be a good sexual model, because of high parental investment necessary for human babies.

For almost all of human history we lived in tribes. Children were raised and cared for by the entire tribe. This is obviously a far more robust child raising model than the nuclear family which is both a high stress and high investment environment for child raising but which is also extremely fragile.

[/quote]
I agree, but that doesn't mean there was no concept of mother, father and their respective children, and that tribes members did not take better care of their offspring compared to other children, and did not protect their mate from getting pregnant from others. The "provider" mating strategy is almost only present in humans. After all, kin selection would naturally make tribe members favor their offspring and invest more resources into them.

Quote: (06-07-2014 01:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

More like you're just arguing nomenclature.

No I am not. What I am saying is that there is a fundamentally different psychology at play when you have the concept of property.

Quote: (06-07-2014 01:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

There's no difference between "survival resources" and "property." Property is just a logical outgrowth of "survival resources," and clearly there is hoarding in nature of the successful rich alpha males against the poor beta males. Whether is it territory or women, the concept is the same.

Provide a difference or no one is going to take you seriously.

People build empires, claim land, create nation states, start world wars over the accumulation of an excess of property. Animals dont dont any of this.

In relationships men claim women as sexual property legally speaking, handcuff themselves legally to them in marriage, regard their SMV as low if their notch count is high etc etc. Animals dont dont any of this.

You asked for one example. There is a whole bunch of them there.

Quote: (06-07-2014 01:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Exactly, which is why "Sex 3.0" is really just nonsense. Polyamoury is bullshit, never has worked, and never will work.

What has Sex 3.0 got to do with polyamory?

Sex 3.0 is a solution framework.

Poly is not a solution framework. Why? Because it was not designed to solve anything.

I have spoken at poly conferences even though I am not poly.

You can call poly a lifestyle choice, or a relationship configuration or simply the rejection of conventional monogamy but none of those things "solve" anything.

I have spoken to plenty of poly people who will tell you that poly creates as many problems as it solves.

The fact that you would mistakenly compare 3.0 with poly proves that you dont understand what Sex 3.0 is. There are blog posts, the wiki, podcasts etc etc all of which are easy to find and free.

Please seek to understand what something before is before you call it bullshit. In more than 3 years of doing this job and having literally thousands of conversations telling people what 3.0 is (it takes about 45 mins to explain it properly) not a single person has been anything other than positive about 3.0.

The only negative comments I get are from people who dont understand what it is.

Quote:Quote:

Everything you've said about Sex 3.0 is a distinction without a difference. I stopped taking you seriously when you failed to answer the question of who raises children when he's got 2 Dads and 3 Moms.

The answer to that question is simple. 5 people.

Bonecrcker on Prostitution.

Bonecrcker #79 - Prostitution

Quote:Quote:

I think the only way prostitution could ever work would be to use price fixing and extremely rigid controls to make sure that AIDS isn’t spread everywhere and that the criminal element wouldn’t dare run the show. Basically, what we have now is that the criminal element in the US runs prostitution, which is heavily entwined with drugs. It’s also the only way a normal man (i.e. a non-intravenous drug using heterosexual) can reasonably expect to catch AIDS.

If they can’t solve those two problems, they can’t legalize it. If they want to try, they should start small, like what they have in Nevada.

If you don’t fix the price, you will have most women abandoning all pretence of family and respectable living to make thousands of dollars a night as a prostitute. Of course, once they reach age 30 and can’t work anymore, society will pick up the tab for taking care of them. I mean, we already have a huge problem in this country where too large a percentage of our best looking women choose to strip instead of becoming normal decent folk. Most of these get hooked on drugs and become the absolute worst of the worst when it comes to women. How would you like that to become most women? Women are bad but most aren’t that bad. Uncontrolled, legalized prostitution would make most women as bad as the average crack whore.

Bonecrcker #92 - The Problem With Whores

Quote:Quote:

The problem with a whore is she takes the obnoxious high risk behavior women engage in to ridiculous extremes. Even with all the crap women do, few are having sexual contacts into the hundreds per year with complete lack of restrictions. However, all whores do this. And a whore that will have sex with you for money will happily have sex with a high risk man, without a condom….for more money. Anyplace (like the United States, for example) where being whore is all about letting men beat you in exchange for speedy drugs, you are almost guaranteed to be exposed to AIDS, many other diseases almost as deadly/nasty, not to mention the criminal element. Just say NO to any westernized woman who has ever worked in the sex for money industry in any capacity. Although every woman has a screw loose, these women have 90% of their screws loose. Quite frankly, your chances of being exposed to AIDS is close to nil, unless you specifically go looking for it by screwing prostitutes or specifically seek out the IV drug user crowd or if you have sex with men.

I cannot comment on the sex for money scene outside the US but I think it’s asking for trouble. Definitely, not something you should even consider unless you spend a significant amount of time investigating the real risks involved. The problem though is there are people with an agenda who don’t want you to have access to that scene, who lie about the risks (which, of course makes people doubt the risk is real). But, there are also people involved in the scene who lie the other way about the risks because denial is a big part of how they handle those risks. The truth is there is significant risk…..of catching AIDS (I actually know a guy who died of AIDS this way), of catching something else just as bad, of being robbed etc., and lots of other stuff. Anyone who tells you different is LYING. What you need is truthful information that allows you to plan behaviors that minimize your risk. If you can’t or simply won’t do that, then the price in terms of risk is probably unacceptably high.

Personally, I wouldn’t consider an American prostitute under any circumstances. They are the worst women on the planet and I’d enter a monastery before I let one of those sick bitches even touch me. I might consider a woman from one of the eastern countries like this but only if she was of such high quality that I would never see a woman like that here, let alone screw her. And I would only do that if I spent a hell of a lot of time minimizing my risk and networking with guys who frequent that specific scene and know what they are doing.

Bonecrcker #108 - Feminism Pushes the Whore/Customer Model

Quote:Quote:

I see the increasing tendency of women to follow the whore/customer model (formally or informally) as a big part of the problem and as a major part of the feminist agenda. There is a weird double standard with this. They don’t actually want men to have access to sex outside of marriage as a way to break their wives use of sex as a method of manipulation but they want to protect the ability of women to follow the lifestyle of a prostitute as a way to destroy the very fabric of families as an institution. I see this as one of the schisms in the feminist movement.

Prostitution is an extremely destructive thing to a culture when it is allowed to grow beyond a certain point. Bluntly, whores epitomize the very worst qualities in women. Too much patronage/normalization of this and women as a whole in that culture take on those traits, more and more. To a large extent, that’s what is happening in our own culture.

The family is the traditional tool used by every culture to encourage positive values and loving, stable, nurturing relationships. Anything that threatens that is a bad thing. Just because whores are upfront and honest (yeah right) about what they desire from you doesn’t mean that sort of relationship is desirable or even acceptable. The problem is so many women wanting to be like those whores. That should be discouraged. Giving money to a whore encourages those values, not only in her but in all women. Far better to treat a woman like a whore but make sure she gets nothing in the bargain. There are plenty of women that will let you do this to them. Making sure you get what you want out of them but that it is not a profitable (pun intended) exchange for them is a way to get what you want while discouraging the behavior as a whole. The goal should be to make those women think wistfully about being married to a devoted, caring husband who loves them.

Bonecrcker #117 - Would Strip Down In A Room With A Crack Addict?

Quote:Quote:

Let me ask you. Would you strip down in a room alone with a crack addict who has been arrested numerous times for violent crimes? Because that is exactly the type of person you are with when you get a prostitute. I can almost guarantee you will be exposed to AIDS, herpes, hepatitis, TB, and a host of other things you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy. This person belongs to the criminal subculture….a part of society it is very important to avoid all contact with, because it exists for the sole purpose of hurting normal folks. There is also the additional issue that many prostitutes don’t live that lifestyle by choice. They are actually slaves. Some are girls from the very worst situations domestically. Many have actually been tricked and then kidnapped into leaving a foreign country and then put to work in the sex trade. A great many strippers fall into that category. Do you really want to be a part of that…..hanging out with the Russian mob so you can have sex with an AIDS infected slave, and pay out the nose for it? Things are tough in the dating scene. But they’re not THAT tough.

Quote: (06-11-2014 11:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Bonecrcker on Prostitution.

Bonecrcker #79 - Prostitution

Quote:Quote:

I think the only way prostitution could ever work would be to use price fixing and extremely rigid controls to make sure that AIDS isn’t spread everywhere and that the criminal element wouldn’t dare run the show. Basically, what we have now is that the criminal element in the US runs prostitution, which is heavily entwined with drugs. It’s also the only way a normal man (i.e. a non-intravenous drug using heterosexual) can reasonably expect to catch AIDS.

If they can’t solve those two problems, they can’t legalize it. If they want to try, they should start small, like what they have in Nevada.

If you don’t fix the price, you will have most women abandoning all pretence of family and respectable living to make thousands of dollars a night as a prostitute. Of course, once they reach age 30 and can’t work anymore, society will pick up the tab for taking care of them. I mean, we already have a huge problem in this country where too large a percentage of our best looking women choose to strip instead of becoming normal decent folk. Most of these get hooked on drugs and become the absolute worst of the worst when it comes to women. How would you like that to become most women? Women are bad but most aren’t that bad. Uncontrolled, legalized prostitution would make most women as bad as the average crack whore.

This is just ignorance. How many guys are barebacking the same prostitute multiple times a year? That's likely what it would take for a heterosexual man to get HIV from a prostitute infected with it given the heterosexual female to male transmission odds.

http://www.aidsmap.com/Estimated-risk-pe...e/1324038/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet money that the average Western prostitute does not allow her customers to fuck her without using condoms.

And his remarks about "most women" becoming prostitutes are absurd.

There's a joke going around HIV research circles "if everyone wears condoms, we wouldn't have an AIDS problem". The probability of catching HIV from female to male is 0.05% per sex act, based on studies discordant couples (one has HIV) that were encouraged to wear condoms. But a lot of the discordant couples in these studies got pregnant, go figure.

If prostituition means professional sex, then if you take out the pro.. Does "titution" mean unpaid for sex?

Interesting discussion.

You guys miss out one important point though: The average guy is lazy.

The average guy does nothing towards self-improvement. The average guy is repulsed by the idea of "game". The average guy does not travel. The average guy does not lift weights or exercise. The average guy resents change. The average guy does not stack cash.

You will NEVER have a situation where even 25% of society learns game in the wider sense of the word. In this sense, the apocalyptic predictions being made are a little overblown. Any guy that improves himself has a chance. Why? Because there are so many lazy fuckers out there who will never change.

Game does save lives but ONLY if men will commit to learning it. Guys that I know openly mock PUA and game, yet they are the ones who most desperately need it. One acquaintance of mine would take the piss out of us approaching girls and all the while he is supplicating hourly on the phone to his psycho-bitch girlfriend who has cheated on him at least 3 times to my knowledge. You can lead a horse to water but...

Great points fellas. Civilizations are always changing. They collapse and re-grow into something else.

As for legalizing prostitution, let's try it. See if it can solve any societal problems. As of right now, criminalizing it ain't working. Money is being spent on vice units and tax from it ain't being collected from the sales aspect.

Will legalization help any sexually frustrated men, of course it will help a few. But, to go kill many people can't be blamed solely on this all the time. In this case, who knows. Game, well not everybody can be good at it. They can read it, try it, but to be good at it,,,,,well that's another story.

Western civilization is changing. The game or prostitution is only a tiny fraction of what is in the mix.

I think the big step forward is the recognition of women as people and not women. Fortunately feminism is making this more and more of a reality.

As was discussed in another thread(Halley Berry Child Support) due to an increased number of women making more money in Massachusetts and being forced to pay that money in alimony to divorced husbands punitive alimony laws were scaled back. As the world becomes more and more insanely pushed in favor of women (rape laws, alimony, childcare) eventually things get so lopsided that it starts backfiring which will trigger a regression to the mean. As women gain more and more privileges their ability to portray themselves as a meager underclass weakens. This intern weakens their political power until they are pushed back to the start point.

I don't know about you guys but when I talk to my male peers (college aged) many of them are quite aware of how crazy our country is getting. Now these aren't red pill dudes by any stretch of the imagination, but they do recognize the patterns that make up the red pill argument against feminism. In a decade or three these will be the guys who are running for office and occupying positions of power in our society. Most of them recognize the pussification of America and are quite unhappy with it.

When I look at modern social policies I see a lot of parallels to the temperance movement and the eventual prohibition of alcohol. The majority of people liked drinking and didn't want to ban liquor but they got caught up in the hysteria of everything. After a few years things regressed back to were they should be. I don't see why this will be any different.

It's not like I have much evidence to back it up other than personal experience but its not like the stakes are terribly high either. Life will go on regardless of how much the US/west declines. It's arrogant to assume that the west was going to be on the top of the dog pile forever. Maybe another part of the world is due for its time in the sun or perhaps we will see a shift from nation states to mega corporations. I'm not one too be overly concerned with this sort of thing, its like pissing into a hurricane.

Quote: (06-11-2014 11:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Bonecrcker on Prostitution.

This guy sounds like he's out of his mind. Look at the parts of the world where prostitution is already legal. This idea that every woman will turn into a low-end street walker sucking dicks for $20 so she can buy some rocks is really out of touch.

Quote:Quote:

If you don’t fix the price, you will have most women abandoning all pretence of family and respectable living to make thousands of dollars a night as a prostitute.

Prostitution is already legal in most parts of the world outside the U.S., and even American girls who are attractive enough can make somewhere between $200-$500 an hour as an escort if they really want to. Is this something "most women" are doing? This guy is full of shit and a brief reading of a P4P message board would dispel most of what he's hysterical about. It's basically married dudes acting like they're going out with their buddies to a sports bar on a Monday night and banging someone better looking than their shriveled, old wives for a few minutes, then going back to their "real lives."

Quote: (06-11-2014 11:37 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Quote: (06-11-2014 11:25 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Bonecrcker on Prostitution.

Bonecrcker #79 - Prostitution

Quote:Quote:

I think the only way prostitution could ever work would be to use price fixing and extremely rigid controls to make sure that AIDS isn’t spread everywhere and that the criminal element wouldn’t dare run the show. Basically, what we have now is that the criminal element in the US runs prostitution, which is heavily entwined with drugs. It’s also the only way a normal man (i.e. a non-intravenous drug using heterosexual) can reasonably expect to catch AIDS.

If they can’t solve those two problems, they can’t legalize it. If they want to try, they should start small, like what they have in Nevada.

If you don’t fix the price, you will have most women abandoning all pretence of family and respectable living to make thousands of dollars a night as a prostitute. Of course, once they reach age 30 and can’t work anymore, society will pick up the tab for taking care of them. I mean, we already have a huge problem in this country where too large a percentage of our best looking women choose to strip instead of becoming normal decent folk. Most of these get hooked on drugs and become the absolute worst of the worst when it comes to women. How would you like that to become most women? Women are bad but most aren’t that bad. Uncontrolled, legalized prostitution would make most women as bad as the average crack whore.

This is just ignorance. How many guys are barebacking the same prostitute multiple times a year? That's likely what it would take for a heterosexual man to get HIV from a prostitute infected with it given the heterosexual female to male transmission odds.

http://www.aidsmap.com/Estimated-risk-pe...e/1324038/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet money that the average Western prostitute does not allow her customers to fuck her without using condoms.

And his remarks about "most women" becoming prostitutes are absurd.

Street walkers are bottom barrel so with drugs sometimes in the mix it's a toss up. But with escorts since it's their hustle they are more aggressive with rubbers. Your average skank from the bar will raw dog you know problem, but a escort won't.

Every broad has a price though, and if some guy is waving a stack infront of her she will give in. Sometimes it is just a matter of comfort and if you repeat with the same one long enough she will jump on raw, it happens.

I think drugs is probably the only way a hetro man can legit catch HIV. Not even just the drug use, but he social circles that you run in with hat lifestyle. The broads will be users also and more likely to be infected.