Most of the reasons cited in this article are also reasons why men purchase sex. Perhaps not so much that they fear for their physical safety, but emotionally? Absolutely. Lack of strings...
Most of the reasons cited in this article are also reasons why men purchase sex. Perhaps not so much that they fear for their physical safety, but emotionally? Absolutely. Lack of strings attached? Definitely. Insecurities? You got it.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. They may be similar reasons, but they are not the same reasons. There's still a large power imbalance when it comes to sex where the men are far more pushy...
I'm going to have to disagree with you. They may be similar reasons, but they are not the same reasons.
There's still a large power imbalance when it comes to sex where the men are far more pushy and dangerous. Points which are brought in in the article and why women fear that the man will stalk them, not listen to them during sex and so forth. Does this mean that women can't behave like that? Well, no, but that ends up being far less common than the opposite.
It's similar to the dating site experience. Women encounter a lot more creepy men, stalkers and so forth than men encounter creepy women. Trying to equate the two by saying for example 'reasons why women avoid dating sites are also reasons why men avoid dating sites' would be fallacious.
Look at the title: "They actually stopped," I don't think a normal man has to worry that his partner won't stop their current activity when he says "no". Meanwhile, many women do have to worry...
Look at the title: "They actually stopped," I don't think a normal man has to worry that his partner won't stop their current activity when he says "no". Meanwhile, many women do have to worry about this, as the article points out.
It's more than just physical safety. That's just one symptom of the larger issue. There's a power imbalance between men and women. Women pay for sex to give themselves the power they may not have in other sexual encounters.
I'm not refuting what you said, I'm trying to show that you missed the point of the article. You're equating these women's experiences to men's experiences. However, men are much less likely to...
I'm not refuting what you said, I'm trying to show that you missed the point of the article. You're equating these women's experiences to men's experiences. However, men are much less likely to feel unsafe or insecure in a sexual encounter than women. Women are paying for sex in order not to feel powerless, and to buy themselves some safety.
This is a very "men's sex lives matter too" response by you. You're downplaying the importance of women's lack of safety in sexual relations.
Algernon, if you are truly invested in the instigation and betterment of discourse (and ultimately what I imagine to be the dissemination of your gospel) you may want to consider revising your...
Algernon, if you are truly invested in the instigation and betterment of discourse (and ultimately what I imagine to be the dissemination of your gospel) you may want to consider revising your public relations strategies.
Sometimes you come across as rather rude, and it severely diminishes the value of what you are saying.
I understand you have modelled yourself after "The Great Explainer", and you are surely earnest, but dare I say you may be deficient in your humanism.
What I mean to say is, it appears to me you are utterly consumed by your own dogma, which eclipses any speck of humanism, as I see it.
Have a nice day, apologies for the off-topic post.
Please point out how I have been rude in this discussion. I have not insulted or belittled anyone. I have merely dared to disagree with them. I'm allowed to do that. I would say the same thing...
Sometimes you come across as rather rude
Please point out how I have been rude in this discussion. I have not insulted or belittled anyone. I have merely dared to disagree with them. I'm allowed to do that.
it appears to me you are utterly consumed by your own dogma, which eclipses any speck of humanism,
I would say the same thing about the person I'm discussing this with: they're coming across as dismissive of women's concerns, and making this all about men. As I indicated, their comment was equivalent to someone saying "all lives matter" in a discussion about racism. It's tone deaf to the concerns of women, and devalues their experiences.
But I didn't go around accusing them of a lack of humanism (did you mean "humanity"?). That would have been rude.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I agree with them. This is a really small community and there isn't a lot of activity. I've lurked in just about every thread and I've noticed that you...
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I agree with them. This is a really small community and there isn't a lot of activity. I've lurked in just about every thread and I've noticed that you have a tendency to be rude, condescending, or dismissive when you're debating someone. For example, in this thread your initial response, "Look at the title," before writing anything else seems dismissive and rude. Just compare your response to FZeroRacer's. You two are basically saying the same thing, but there is a big difference in the tone.
I do appreciate your contribution to the community. You post good content, bring a lot of good insight, and definitely liven up the discussions in the comments; but this is something you should be aware of.
Well you've been rude to me by putting words into my mouth. That is something that you're making up. Sorry. Both them and I are saying that the thing is not exclusive to women, and you're...
Well you've been rude to me by putting words into my mouth.
I would say the same thing about the person I'm discussing this with: they're coming across as dismissive of women's concerns, and making this all about men.
That is something that you're making up. Sorry. Both them and I are saying that the thing is not exclusive to women, and you're portraying us as if we say women don't have similar or more grave problems.
Except he does. Women are humans too, they can be pushy. Also, don't think of it only as making sex continue involuntarily via sheer force, there's insisting, there's shaming (and there's a lot of...
Look at the title: "They actually stopped," I don't think a normal man has to worry that his partner won't stop their current activity when he says "no".
Except he does. Women are humans too, they can be pushy. Also, don't think of it only as making sex continue involuntarily via sheer force, there's insisting, there's shaming (and there's a lot of it attached to a man's refusing a woman's sexual advances).
What are you talking about? Where did I say they weren't? That men can somehow be coerced into sex does not invalidate the women's situation, or that their situation is more grave, does it?
What are you talking about? Where did I say they weren't? That men can somehow be coerced into sex does not invalidate the women's situation, or that their situation is more grave, does it?
Most of the reasons cited in this article are also reasons why men purchase sex. Perhaps not so much that they fear for their physical safety, but emotionally? Absolutely. Lack of strings attached? Definitely. Insecurities? You got it.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. They may be similar reasons, but they are not the same reasons.
There's still a large power imbalance when it comes to sex where the men are far more pushy and dangerous. Points which are brought in in the article and why women fear that the man will stalk them, not listen to them during sex and so forth. Does this mean that women can't behave like that? Well, no, but that ends up being far less common than the opposite.
It's similar to the dating site experience. Women encounter a lot more creepy men, stalkers and so forth than men encounter creepy women. Trying to equate the two by saying for example 'reasons why women avoid dating sites are also reasons why men avoid dating sites' would be fallacious.
Look at the title: "They actually stopped," I don't think a normal man has to worry that his partner won't stop their current activity when he says "no". Meanwhile, many women do have to worry about this, as the article points out.
It's more than just physical safety. That's just one symptom of the larger issue. There's a power imbalance between men and women. Women pay for sex to give themselves the power they may not have in other sexual encounters.
I did look at the title. I also read the accompanying article. I don't disagree with your comment, but it also doesn't refute anything I said.
I'm not refuting what you said, I'm trying to show that you missed the point of the article. You're equating these women's experiences to men's experiences. However, men are much less likely to feel unsafe or insecure in a sexual encounter than women. Women are paying for sex in order not to feel powerless, and to buy themselves some safety.
This is a very "men's sex lives matter too" response by you. You're downplaying the importance of women's lack of safety in sexual relations.
Algernon, if you are truly invested in the instigation and betterment of discourse (and ultimately what I imagine to be the dissemination of your gospel) you may want to consider revising your public relations strategies.
Sometimes you come across as rather rude, and it severely diminishes the value of what you are saying.
I understand you have modelled yourself after "The Great Explainer", and you are surely earnest, but dare I say you may be deficient in your humanism.
What I mean to say is, it appears to me you are utterly consumed by your own dogma, which eclipses any speck of humanism, as I see it.
Have a nice day, apologies for the off-topic post.
Please point out how I have been rude in this discussion. I have not insulted or belittled anyone. I have merely dared to disagree with them. I'm allowed to do that.
I would say the same thing about the person I'm discussing this with: they're coming across as dismissive of women's concerns, and making this all about men. As I indicated, their comment was equivalent to someone saying "all lives matter" in a discussion about racism. It's tone deaf to the concerns of women, and devalues their experiences.
But I didn't go around accusing them of a lack of humanism (did you mean "humanity"?). That would have been rude.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I agree with them. This is a really small community and there isn't a lot of activity. I've lurked in just about every thread and I've noticed that you have a tendency to be rude, condescending, or dismissive when you're debating someone. For example, in this thread your initial response, "Look at the title," before writing anything else seems dismissive and rude. Just compare your response to FZeroRacer's. You two are basically saying the same thing, but there is a big difference in the tone.
I do appreciate your contribution to the community. You post good content, bring a lot of good insight, and definitely liven up the discussions in the comments; but this is something you should be aware of.
@Deimos, might be time to lock this down?
Well you've been rude to me by putting words into my mouth.
That is something that you're making up. Sorry. Both them and I are saying that the thing is not exclusive to women, and you're portraying us as if we say women don't have similar or more grave problems.
Except he does. Women are humans too, they can be pushy. Also, don't think of it only as making sex continue involuntarily via sheer force, there's insisting, there's shaming (and there's a lot of it attached to a man's refusing a woman's sexual advances).
So why are women so much more likely to be the victims of rape or forced sex than men?
What are you talking about? Where did I say they weren't? That men can somehow be coerced into sex does not invalidate the women's situation, or that their situation is more grave, does it?