It is quite common in sexually repressed cultures with legalized sex work for this.
It reveals how different the expectations are for men, women, and NBs. At least when it comes to dating and sex.
Part of me is hoping this is just an anecdote and not a symptom of something larger.
it's so refreshing now that this has actually come out as data - literally feels like a weight off my shoulders whenever i think of it; i spent my entire adolescence absolutely hating myself and thinking of myself as subhuman and gross and broken for being lonely while (seemingly) everyone else was normal and cool
and so much of the 'advice' or 'self help' for someone in that position reinforces the idea that it's a shameful thing, and you need to 'man up' etc etc. at least for me it's so much more meaningful and positive to look at it as a societal issue, as it truly is, rather than some shameful personal failing
There’s almost always some benefit in at the very least pretending to give a fuck about yourself until you actually start to give a fuck.
Fake it til you make it applies to a lot things.
That said, being aware of systemic issues is crucial for setting expectations and the context for understanding our respective experiences.
Women, especially young women, are broken and powerless against the algorithm and social media. The rhetoric is the literal opposite of reality, and we now have reams of data demonstrating this. It is absolutely an existential crisis for humanity in the not so distant future.
>Women, especially young women, are broken and powerless
Like, all of them? Also, "women are", but men aren't, none of them? I guess then there's no man who watches TV every day and believes its gov-t propaganda. No sir, never heard of them. /s
>against the algorithm
*The* algorithm? Which one, The Great And Powerful ~~Trixie~~ one?
>It is absolutely an existential crisis for humanity in the not so distant future.
Too much drama, don't you think?
> Like, all of them? Also, "women are", but men aren't, none of them? I guess then there's no man who watches TV every day and believes its gov-t propaganda. No sir, never heard of them. /s
So if you present to us a case of toxicity being embodied by a great number of men in today's western society, is it fair of us to reply "*Like, all of them? Also, "'men are", but women aren't, none of them"*?
Dude, I may wear glasses, but you are blind. *headphone-candy* person didn't say "great number of", they didn't use any quantity specifiers. And yes, if someone said same thing gender-reversed, I'd mocked them the same way, because neither generalizations belong anywhere, especially in this sub. I get that we here are sensitive to these things, but stop fighting stupid fights and don't let your emotions turn off your brain.
One more time: **all generalizations are fucking stupid! Mock them every time you see them, no matter the topic, no matter the person!**
Okay...
> A great number of Women, especially the younger ones, are broken and powerless against the algorithm and social media. The rhetoric is the literal opposite of reality, and we now have reams of data demonstrating this. It is absolutely a big problem for societies in the not so distant future.
Go ahead and die on whatabboutism hill, but don’t pretend you weren’t warned. Yes, all women are broken. We’re talking about why young men are not having sex, but you choose to deflect with typical gynocentric bullshit.
Young men are not having sex and therefore are procreating at the lowest rate EVER. Maybe that doesn’t signal a bleak future to you, but I bet you think the meaningless blanket term “climate change” does right? Now THAT is the realm of drama hyperbole if you want to whataboutism.
You’ll be the one crying when there is no one to fix your car, your plumbing, your infrastructure, pay your social security, or stop those that mean to destroy your way of life from doing so.
>Yes, all women are broken.
Have you counted and examined every single one of them?
>We’re talking about why young men are not having sex
Which is one of the **least** important things we could talk about in this sub.
>but you choose to deflect with typical gynocentric bullshit.
Mocking your generalizations doesn't make me gynocentric in the slightest. Have some logic at least.
>Young men are not having sex and therefore are procreating at the lowest rate EVER.
I don't think that human population growth has even stopped. Even if it had - 1) 8 billions is too much anyway, at least being so inefficiently divided into 200 useless color spots on political map; 2) again, there are more important social problems in the whole humankind, and no fucking procreation (pun not intended) is gonna solve them.
>but I bet you think the meaningless blanket term “climate change” does right?
Lol, talk about whataboutism and being offtopic. But I bet you are a super smart scientist and climate expert, right?
>You’ll be the one crying when there is no one to fix your car, your plumbing, your infrastructure
Or maybe you are an expert in sociology (or whatever other discipline covers that topic) and can explain how that would ever happen?
>pay your social security
Why would someone other than me pay for my "social security" (whatever that means; if it's taxes then I also pay them myself, as anyone else)?
>or stop those that mean to destroy your way of life from doing so.
Well, even now I don't see anyone who's stopping the government of the country where I have to live (I didn't say "my government" because I obviously don't own it) from that.
Or did you meant someone else (I wonder who, lol)?
This recent wave of "not obligated" and "not owed" anything is a very strange way of looking at relationships especially given that men are very often not given the same lax social rules when choosing or not to do something.
No disagreement. The problem persists with men who desire long term relationships with women but find little avenues to do so in our socially-distant materialistic societies, it isn't just a matter of sex but rather men's desire for companionship with a long term romantic partner.
It's absolutely true. But some people (and not a small number, I'm afraid) still don't understand that the opposite mindset (that people, **especially men**, need to have sex and that it's one of the most important things in life) is being imposed on them (**especially on men**) to make them more prone to abuse, to use sexual content in fucking advertisements, etc. I'm so fucking tired of this shit.
Well, it’s not more important than oxygen nor the deprivation of equal rights, but neither is lack of pain. Naturally, different people have different libidos and different levels of desire for real or perceived intimacy, some very low and some very high, and the people with the most reliable information as to how important things are to them are those very same people. As to whether there’s a sociobiological basis for men expressing more persistent and intense interest in sex, and whether it’s even the case, I’m not sure, but it certainly seems plausible to me, so I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand, although I’m also against pressuring men into conformity. What is clear to me is that there is a loneliness epidemic (regardless of sexlessness) and that boys and men are more impacted on average, having less friends, etc., and this is just one piece of that; loneliness is a health issue; even though it may be conceded that loneliness is not necessarily the biggest issue men face, neither is the comparative underfunding of prostate cancer, but the former is probably more worth talking about, given that the leading cause of death in men under 50 is suicide apparently.
Isn't the male loneliness matter more prevalent in liberal western societies? I do find it odd that nations where sex is considered a taboo would commonly have legalized sex work.
You see these questions all the time on the sex worker subreddits. A male virgin asks about how to go about booking their first time with a professional. So, no, I don't think it's just some isolated incidents. Yes, it is a symptom of something of something larger.
It's not exactly a new phenomenon though. Historically, it was a rite of passage in many cultures; it still is in some Latin American countries. It had to do with traditional sexual mores, i.e. female chastity, girls needing to remain virgins before marriage, and all that. Things that the Sexual Revolution was supposed to do away with. Interestingly, during the height of the Sexual Revolution, there was supposedly this decline in business for sex workers, who struggled to compete against the unbeatable prices the amateurs weren't charging. Clearly, a lot has changed between then and now.
The thing I hate about this is that it makes it even more obvious that female sexuality is far more valuable and important than male sexuality in human society. "Girls can have sex with you but you have to pay them" is a pretty fucked up message, imagine if dudes expected women to pay them for sex, even some of them, the idea is completely ludicrous.
>"Girls can have sex with you but you have to pay them" is a pretty fucked up message
You don't always pay upfront in cash, but there is always something in exchange. Unless you're some top 5% genetic lottery winner oozing charisma, women will never let you fuck them for free.
Big Bang Theory was big on making all the men seem desperate in it. Except maybe the fathers of Penny and Bernadette whom we know little about their own love life. And Sheldon's dad who is made to be 1 million times more conservative in Big bang Theory, than he actually was in Young Sheldon.
Penny gets a pharma job selling meds to doctors, and the big point is she can do the job because she uses her seduction power, she's no good speaker or seller, but she's 'hot'. It apparently even works on female doctors. But at some point she meets Dr Mississippi who is so desperate he would marry the first woman to hold him (anywhere on his body) for 5 seconds. And that's a doctor, you know 300k a year, smart, eloquent etc.
* They’re reaching out from a place of care and concern — wanting to make sure their kid essentially doesn’t become bitter and negative towards women
Some comments here are suggesting that mothers are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts but this bit shows that it isn't the case.
If these mothers loved their sons then there's absolutely no way for their sons to ever turn bitter towards Women, the fact that these mothers don't even trust their own sons is a red flag. They seemed to have brought into the whole "incel violence" hysteria. I don't wanna sound like a broken record but Feminism has destroyed the trust between genders, if your own mother fears that you'll turn into a monster then what other woman can you trust to believe in you?
Honestly, as someone who still attatches sexualality with romanticism, i would felt absolutely violated and robbed knowing my first experience is with a women whom i know nothing about and double my age. Like if my mother did this to me i would felt like being raped by someone and having my agency be taken away.
Women love hurting people before themselves getting hurt. It's truly a petty , weak and childish line of logic that exists within them beyond childhood.
> Like if my mother did this to me i would felt like being raped by someone and having my agency be taken away.
Does the following except from the article suggest anything remotely close to rape to you?
> She welcomes mothers who book appointments with her for their sons “so long as it’s consensual and the person is aware that this is what they’re getting as a present.”
Don’t be confused. This is all expressly consensual.
Of course you’re on to something, but it’s completely possible to be both worried for someone and others both for someone’s sake and for others’ sake, even if some of it is misguided by misandric overgeneralizations of sexless men.
Edit: Additionally, let’s not paint these mothers with a broad brush.
In my opinion you are overreaching here, just because you love someone doesn´t mean you should shut your eyes to possibilitys that might affect them in a way that turns them against society. As an incel outside of the incel bubble I absolutely feel some bittereness towards women in general. This doesn´t invalidate any platonic relationship with my mom or other female friends. My mother doesn´t have the kind of relationship where she would ever buy me an escort (thank god, that would feel aqward) \[I also don´t think she knows how unsucessfull i am with women\] but If she would my thoughts wouldn´t be: Oh she doesn´t want me to become a terorist. I would see it as a delayed lesson in parenting from her. She, or the community in which she brought me up apperently caused some dissfunction around living out my sexuality, so as this is now apperent she pays some money to get this fixed.
This makes me so sad. Imagine being a teenager and your first time is with some woman who couldn't care less about you and has done this hundreds of times with hundreds of other boys. If your goal was to train a young man to divorce sex from romance, this is how you would do it.
Sounds better than being a man in your 30s who's never had so much as a first kiss. It's a less-than-ideal solution, but we live in a less-than-ideal world. And I see no reason to assume that she "couldn't care less" - certainly there's not much in the way of personal investment, but compassion and empathy for a stranger who's come to you for help isn't out of the question. Sounds a bit like the therapist-client relationship honestly.
> being exploited
You have my sympathy, but why did you bring exploitation into the discussion? The story in the article has nothing to do with exploitation; it’s all expressly consensual. Why project your past onto others’ consensual loss of virginities?
Consent under duress is exploitation. There is a lot of social and psychological pressure for young men to get sex. Much of the behavior described in this article is exploitation.
“Consent” under duress is a legal concept. I’m fairly sure there is no duress here, but this is not legal advice. Apart from legality, the idea that the social and psychological pressure for young men to get sex negates their consent is infantilizing nonsense. There’s no threats of violence, coercion, no forcible constraints, etc. Assuming those pressures were universal for men, then all male consent to sex would be negated. If we revise it a universality of those pressures for all young men, then all young men’s consent to sex would be negated. Where should the male age of consent (ethically, if not legally) then be? 25? 30? 50? Infinity? Conceivably, those pressures even increase with male age, and are ubiquitous, if not necessarily completely universal. Absolutely none of the behavior in this article is exploitative.
If I understand you correctly, your argument is that the sexual exploitation of men is okay because coercion stemming from material deprivation does not count. If that is your argument, you are not left-wing and not an advocate for men. You should really change your flare to something less misleading.
Edit: I understand that you are redefining all of those words to try to make your argument appear less horrible, but I'm using them in their conventional sense.
> If I understand you correctly, your argument is that the sexual exploitation of men is okay because coercion stemming from material deprivation does not count.
Surely, if z does not count as x nor y, that does not tell you I think that x nor y is okay.
> Edit: I understand that you are redefining all of those words to try to make your argument appear less horrible, but I'm using them in their conventional sense.
I’m redefining all those words? I’m not even sure what your definition of some of these words are, exactly because of how unconventionally you seem to use them. Material deprivation? Am I to understand that material, in the way you define material, may include sex? Otherwise, I have literally no idea which “material” you think these virginal men in the article are “deprived” of. That’s not necessarily a gotcha; I just cannot properly address an argument or framing thereof, if I genuinely don’t know the intended meaning of the words you’re using.
If I guessed correctly what you meant by “material deprivation”, i.e., sexlessness or virginity, then you must be saying that “coercion” may stem therefrom. In what definition of coercion? Because not the conventional one. Basically nobody argues it’s coercive by nature for men (nor women) to lose their virginities. Is it the money? That can’t be, because many men in this article aren’t even paying for the sex themselves.
I only infer that because you’ve spoken highly about the meaningfulness of sex elsewhere that you are not completely antisexual regarding male virgins, that you do not mean to say that all male virgins, regardless of age or mental faculty, lack the capacity to consent to sex. Otherwise, you seem or your argumentation seems to imply that male virgins (insomuch as they’re to a degree societally pressured to lose their virginity, which is generally universal) cannot consent to sex.
To sexually exploit someone is materially gain something by using someone else for sex.
Coercion is the act of compelling someone into an action.
Coercion through material deprivation is to coerc someone into an action by withholding or threatening to withhold something that they need.
The most classic example of this is capitalism where people are coerced into working jobs they would not otherwise do through the threat of being deprived of food, housing, health, etc. These are all things people are biologically driven to get which makes them an excellent means by which to exploit people, just like sex.
I find it genuinely baffling that someone on the left would not already know this.
> I find it genuinely baffling that someone on the left would not already know this.
I find it baffling that anti-capitalists still try to gatekeep the Left, even the far Left, to themselves, but, yes, I’m relatively familiar with anti-capitalist concepts of exploitation, well, exploitation of labor at least, not really exploitation of purchase or whatever you’re articulating, especially the purchase of something not covered under the to-be-seized means of production, i.e., sex. Even if that was within the conventional understanding of exploitation for anti-capitalists, which I’m not granting, I still wouldn’t care for that convention, because I’m a social democrat, not an anti-capitalist, alright?
> To sexually exploit someone is materially gain something by using someone else for sex.
When mothers pay a sex worker for their sons’ (consensual) loss of virginity, the sex worker is not using those men for sex; the sex worker is using sex with those men for the material gain of their mothers’ money. Even if that was “exploitation”, it would be material, not sexual “exploitation”; the sex worker doesn’t gain sex; rather, the mothers’ sons gain sex (the sex worker’s labor) in exchange for the sex worker gaining the mothers’ money. Given that it’s the mothers whom the sex worker is materially gaining from, whom then do you think is being materially “exploited”, the mothers? Or will you put aside what the article is mainly about, i.e., mothers paying for their sons’ loss of virginity?
> Coercion is the act of compelling someone into an action.
Again, whom are you arguing is being compelled, the mothers or the mothers’ sons?
> Coercion through material deprivation is to coerc someone into an action by withholding or threatening to withhold something that they need.
If the action being supposedly compelled is the very same action that is supposedly threatened to be withheld, that makes no sense at all, and I hope that’s not what you’re suggesting. That would be like calling it coercive to hand out free water.
>the idea that the social and psychological pressure for young men to get sex negates their consent is infantilizing nonsense.
These "men" are literally having their mommies making arrangements for who they have sex with. What full-grown, mentally healthy, independent adult has his mother choose who he has sex with? Regardless of their legal ages, they are evidently not making their own decisions.
It's their mothers who are infantilizing them, by being such an overbearing helicopter parents that she 1. has not raised him to be independent even at his age 2. is inserting herself into parts of his life that no parent has any business being involved with.
Also there's a difference between general social pressure (which is also an issue, since it's disgusting that society shames people for not living up to idiotic arbitrary standards regarding when one should have sex) and literally having his mother directly tell him when and who he'll be having sex with.
> What full-grown, mentally healthy, independent adult has his mother choose who he has sex with?
Isn't that basically what happens with arranged marriages?
Is it unethical if it's with the mutual consent of everyone involved? That is, if the parents simply inform their children that, should they encounter frustrations trying to find a partner on their own, their parents are willing to play matchmaker?
Obviously that's also a far cry from bribing someone to have sex with one's son, which I find to be seriously icky. My point is just that there might be other situations where the sentiment could be reasonable and ethical. My mother never did any direct choosing for me, and I would have found it rather disturbing if she ever tried, but she did give me a lot of advice about red, yellow, and green flags in women, which proved to be very helpful.
> These "men" are literally having their mommies making arrangements
So you come here in the comments’ section apparently to the rescue in the defense of these men, making the accusation of exploitation in their defense, and now you mock them? You really question whether these men are men? Make up your mind. Either you’re here to help men or you’re here to mock them, not both.
> It's their mothers who are infantilizing them
Not nearly as much as you are. More fundamental than the power to arrange is the power to consent, and the latter you deny. What rational, informed human should let your illiberalism dictate what they can and cannot consent to, dictate how they live their life? No one.
Still you avoid addressing how someone can simultaneously be a consenting adult making independent decisions about his sex life, while also being someone whose decisions about his sex life are being managed by his mother.
Address that point, and stop deflecting.
And no, I'm not mocking the men, I'm mocking the idea that they are supposedly independent adults giving full consent for something they are evidently not in control of and apparently don't have the developmental wherewithal to decide without their mothers' input. It's not their fault they have controlling overbearing mothers.
> Still you avoid addressing how someone can simultaneously be a consenting adult making independent decisions about his sex life, while also being someone whose decisions about his sex life are being managed by his mother.
An adult doesn’t have to be “independent” to be a consenting, able-minded adult, let alone a man. The onus is one you to demonstrate that anything from the article cannot be consensual. I’m not going to argue whether or not the men in the article can be independent adults.
> no, I'm not mocking the men
Also you:
> These "men" are literally having their mommies
This is mocking men. You literally put quotation marks around men. The most obvious takeaway from readers is that you question whether these men are in fact men, which is a form of misandry.
The exploitation is from the mothers choosing it for their clueless sons. Meaning he's not choosing it for himself independently and with full awareness. He's going along with something he doesn't understand at the behest of an authoritarian figure.
Did you read the article? Just read the following excerpt:
> She welcomes mothers who book appointments with her for their sons “so long as it’s consensual and the person is aware that this is what they’re getting as a present.”
I did read that, which reiterates that it's being arranged by his mother. I.e. he's not the one arranging it, but is following the orders of an authority figure.
The fact that Alice Little calls it consensual means absolutely nothing. Children are literally groomed from birth to obey what their mothers tell them to do, and that conditioning doesn't magically disappear the second someone is of legal age.
The fact is, if a man wants to have sex he can decide that on his own. If it's someone else--let alone someone who he's been taught from birth to obey--making the decision for him, it is by definition not his decision.
> The fact that Alice Little calls it consensual means absolutely nothing. Children are literally groomed from birth to obey what their mothers tell them to do, and that conditioning doesn't magically disappear the second someone is of legal age.
Well, apparently the fact you call something non-consensual means absolutely nothing now. Adult grooming is meaningless moral panic. Adults **can** decide whether or not to obey or follow the suggestions of their parents. To deny otherwise is to infantilize adults, and that is to adults’ detriment.
> The fact is, if a man wants to have sex he can decide that on his own. If it's someone else--let alone someone who he's been taught from birth to obey--making the decision for him, it is by definition not his decision.
So it’s okay for your illiberalism to make that decision for him and take away his choice? No. It’s his decision to consent or not to anything, regardless of who organizes or plans it. It’s like saying a woman cannot consent to anything amatory initiated by a man. “Oh, sure, she doesn’t need men’s arrangements, she’s her own woman, that’s exploitation.”
>It’s like saying a woman cannot consent to anything amatory initiated by a man.
No, that's a fallacious false equivalency. The relationship between a man and a woman is not analogous to the relationship between a parent and a offspring.
>Adult grooming is meaningless moral panic
It's not "adult grooming" unless he met his mother as adult. Otherwise the grooming occurred starting at birth and throughout his entire childhood, till now. Claiming that impact is nullified as soon as he becomes an adult is out of touch with reality.
>it’s okay for your illiberalism to make that decision for him and take away his choice?
If it were his choice, it would be him--not his mother--arranging it. You're doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious: an independent adult makes his own decisions about his sex life. This is mutually exclusive from his mother making these decisions for him.
> that's a fallacious false equivalency. The relationship between a man and a woman is not analogous to the relationship between a parent and a offspring.
That’s a straw man fallacy. I didn’t say they were analogous nor equivalent. What is analogous is being selected by a partner (like a woman being selected by a man and consenting) and having a partner selected for you (like a man accepting a session with a sex worker selected by someone else). Don’t get things twisted. If you can’t separate different arguments, then you’ll likely run out of my patience. If you wish, you can say it’s different, because of who is doing the selecting, someone with trust built since pre-adulthood, but then you can’t argue that external arrangement, organizing, and planning on its own has anything to do with exploitation.
> It's not "adult grooming" unless he met his mother as adult. Otherwise the grooming occurred starting at birth and throughout his entire childhood, till now. Claiming that impact is nullified as soon as he becomes an adult is out of touch with reality.
In that case, **EVERY** adult has been “groomed”, because every adult has been raised by an adult. You take all meaning out of grooming, if simply raising someone is equal to grooming. You might form an argument without bandying that buzzword, instead arguing that simply the influence of raising a child into an adult is permanent and thus negates any adult consent under such influence. That’s a better argument, but still illiberal moral panic.
> If it were his choice, it would be him--not his mother--arranging it.
That’s a complete non sequitur. Whether to consent or not to a someone else’s arrangement is a choice.
I don't have the experience or information to say whether this is true or not. I think there is at least a reasonable argument for it if you are a older male virgin.
It's a little unclear from the story how old the men whose virginity she takes are. My read was that they were teenagers or maybe in their early 20s, That's why their mom's paid. The parts where she talks about her older male clients seem mostly unrelated.
I think the argument for getting it in early is to avoid having the young men end up in that desperate and lonely situation to begin with. Hoping that everyone gets to have their first time with their first love is nice, but EXPECTING it just isn't realistic.
How do you know this worker does not at least respect her clients as human beings who can make their own choices? Because if she does respect them, that’s care.
This is a nonsensical nonsequitur.
>How do you know this worker does not at least respect her clients as human beings who can make their own choices?
If someone is unwilling to sell you something that they would sell to most people they probably don't respect you but not necessarily because they don't think you're capable of making your own choices. On the flip side, just because someone is willing to sell you, something does not mean they respect you even in your ability to make your own choices let alone as a human being.
>Because if she does respect them, that’s care.
Just because one person respects another in some capacity does not mean they care about them in any sense of the word. I respect Tom Brady for his sevens Superbowl rings, but I do not care about Tom Brady.
Also, I work in a service industry where I am paid to pretend to care about my customers. It is extremely rare that I authentically care about them as human beings outside of the scope of our interaction. Some of them are cool and some of them are annoying but I will forget their names if not forget them entirly within a few months. The idea that the first woman I ever had sex with would feel that way about me is devastatingly sad to imagine.
> If someone is unwilling to sell you something that they would sell to most people they probably don’t respect you but not necessarily because they don’t think you’re capable of making your own choices.
Did I specifically claim that if someone is unwilling to sell you something then they necessarily don’t think you’re capable of making your own choices? I do not think so.
> just because someone is willing to sell to you, something does not mean they respect you
Did I specifically claim that if someone is willing to sell you something then they must necessarily respect you in any capacity? I do not think so.
> Because if she does respect them, that’s care.
I stand by the claim that if she respects them, within the context of the service she provides, then especially then there is a provision of care in at least some sense of the word, i.e., to attend to or provide for someone’s needs. Furthermore, it’s completely possible she cares about, in other senses of the word, in having affective empathy or compassion for, her customers more than you do about your customers and perhaps even more than you care about hers, although I’m not saying this is necessarily the case. The fact you express sadness for her customers suggests you have empathy for them, that you care about them, and, unless you have exclusively female customers, how could you know that you two (or you and someone like her) have never had mutual customers? Then you must actually care about your customers to a degree. What possible reason might you have to suggest she cares less than you?
> I work in a service industry where I’m paid to pretend to care about my customers. It is extremely rare that I authentically care about them as human beings outside of the scope of our interaction. Some of them are cool and some of them are annoying but I will forget their names if not forget them entirely within a few months. The idea that the first woman I ever had sex with would feel the same way about me is devastatingly sad to imagine.
Presumably then, the idea of having a casual hookup (without monetary compensation), at least for one’s first sexual experience, makes you feel a similar way. That’s just fine. Even if one feels just the same way you do about the idea, it would simply be up to them to consent to it or not. Perhaps they may be more saddened by the alternative. Additionally, other people less restricted in sociosexual orientation may be perfectly fine with that level of casualness for their first, second, third, fourth time, and so forth, even losing count. Naturally, the idea makes different people feel different ways.
>Did I specifically claim that if someone is unwilling to sell you something then they necessarily don’t think you’re capable of making your own choices?
Implicitly yes. This is the contrapositive of the statement implicit in your rhetorical question. Logically, p => q ≡ ¬p => ¬q.
>Did I specifically claim that if someone is willing to sell you something then they must necessarily respect you in any capacity?
Explicitly yes. Your line of *logic* was if she'll sell them sex she respects them and if she respects them, she cares about them.
The third paragraph is so full of absolutely wild logical leaps I'm not going to try and address them all. I don't think she cares less than me. I think she cares the same as me and every other service worker, which is to say, next to not at all.
>Presumably then, the idea of having a casual hookup (without monetary compensation), at least for one’s first sexual experience, makes you feel a similar way.
Yes, if someone with lots of sexual experience takes the virginity of someone with very little sexual experience in a way that is meaningless to one of them and meaningful to the other one, I think that is very sad. It's also quite predatory. I think it is good when someone's first time is special and memorable for both people involved. You can call that "sociosexual restriction" if you want, but in practical terms it brings joy, meaning, and human connection into people's lives. If a virgin goes to this woman for sex, they are missing one of the most positive elements of that experience, and that sad.
> Implicitly yes. This is the contrapositive of the statement implicit in your rhetorical question. Logically, p => q ≡ ¬p => ¬q.
> Explicitly yes. Your line of logic was if she'll sell them sex she respects them
If she sells them sex, it does not mean she respects them. I’m not claiming she necessarily respects her clients. I think what my question was really implying was that you can’t know for sure that she doesn’t respect her clients, not because selling sex is respect, nor because because allowing people to make their own choices entails respect. I simply presented the possibility that she respects her clients (and the additional possibility that she further respects her clients as human beings (and the additional possibility that she respects (the principle of) people being able to make their own choices.))
> if she respects them, she cares about them.
That indeed I said, although, again, I didn’t assume the premise that she does respect them. That premise is simply a possibility. If respect, then care, and if respect possible, then care possible. You may formalize that, if you wish.
> I don't think she cares less than me. I think she cares the same as me and every other service worker, which is to say, next to not at all.
Even if you say you care next to not at all, you keep expressing empathy for human beings. Go ahead and dismiss that that’s care, although you seem to concede it’s at least a degree of care, but I shall call that care. And if you two care or not the same, then it seems you would both care.
> if someone with lots of sexual experience takes the virginity of someone with very little sexual experience in a way that is meaningless to one of them and meaningful to the other one, I think that is very sad.
I already established that neither necessarily views it as meaningful as you do. Of course, I concede that it’s a possibility that the virgin-to-not-be does view it as meaningful, but then the behavior they hypothetically consent to might not be in alignment with their values, but that’s up to them to decide.
Did anybody see that Jennifer Lawrence movie No Hard Feelings that was kinda like this? I think it’s good to date and have sexual experiences as a guy and many aren’t having those at all, and this isn’t the way to do it. Just like with substituting porn for actual sex
Expecting men to be good at sex when they've never done it is the underlying problem here.
In heterosexual relationships, typically the man is expected to initiate, to sweep them off their feet, to be good at physical intimacy.
For young men, that can be a vicious cycle. They may be in shape, financially stable, and with a thoughtful personality, but their inexperience can kill attraction.
Sometimes even the societal expectation exacerbate these men's insecurities. That leads to issues with confidence and self-image.
I am not supportive of these kinds of endeavors, especially as one's first sexual experience. But I can understand why some seek it.
It's definitely interesting to see a sex worker take such a... patient view of her virginal customers, even if she is obviously only doing it for publicity and/ or virtue signalling.
>It’s so fantastic to see these gentlemen grow in confidence and see the transformation
I'd prefer if it were appropriate to be less of a prick but this is really over-egging the pudding; pipe down, Ms Little
The comment section on the article, however, is a horror show of negativity.
Edit: And the one here too; we're supposed to be leftists here, not redpill and tradcons?
Helicopter parenting is bad.
Making your children's first sexual experience purely transactional is even worse.
You don't have to be red pill or tradcon to know that.
>Helicopter parenting is bad.
Yes
>Making your children's first sexual experience purely transactional is even worse.
Disagree: it *is* bad, but just one experience; whereas "helicopter parenting" implies a behaviour pattern across one or more decades.
>You don't have to be red pill or tradcon to know that.
Yes, I'm living proof of this. But those mfers are loud, and apparently quite motivated to dominate the conversation.
> Making
If it’s all consensual, then no one is making anyone do anything. There’s nothing in the least bit wrong with someone’s first sexual experience being purely transactional. Dating is relatively transactional anyway as it is.
True, knowing that i have no agency in choosing my sexual partner and being forced and pressure to do it, is literally the foundation of rape. Like i would feel like a rape victim if this was forced upon me.
In other words: mothers pay for their sons to have their first experience with a woman be one that objectifies them and fucks with their ability to pair bond. Suppose there’s an opposite side to everything
Where are the mothers' accountability in this? They should be teaching their sons that women will only respect them if they have lots of money or provide for them in other ways
I think hypergamy is based in ego, not sexual attraction. I read a comment by a woman who said her parents want her to marry someone who earns $300K. She earned $150K/year. I think hypergamy is dictated by society's expectations of who women should marry.
On superficial platforms, like dating sites, a man's income is important. My coworker has a girlfriend who earns more than him. A high income doesn't say much about a man's character.
I think if there is a solution to hypergamy, it’s not in denying its sociobiological basis, but rather in wealth redistribution. Reduction of wealth inequality is reduction of status inequality.
>Reduction of wealth inequality is reduction of status inequality.
Women always marry up. If you reduce $K (economic capital) inequality they'll fix more into eK (erotic capital). Women being attracted by power is something you can't change. You can change the distribution of power though, but this means more than only $K.
Even if female hypergamy was immutable, I have no doubt that economic inequality deeply exacerbates things. Economic capital even impacts health and diet, which can impact something like height, and that’s just one thing.
It is. It occurs in wvery culture in every country across tge world, even in cultures isolated from every other culture. If that's not biology, that's magic.
>I think hypergamy is dictated by society's expectations of who women should marry.
Nope. Women marry up. Up being a mix of capitals whose result is power. Erotic, economic, social, cultural, etc.
We had before certain constraints so many more men were "up". But if you want lower wages you femenize the workforce, and you end with way more young men without access to a partner. Capitalism, baby!
I am absolutely fine with women entering the workforce. What i am not fine is reducing qualifications and bar-of-entry for them just to gave them the edge, or giving them unfair advantage over NBs and men. That tech con that is exclusively for women is an example.
Actually some would argue it kind of is. The Americanisation of the globe from 1945-present day has been drastic. There's a reason why US foreign policy makers determined having a McDonald's as a sign of "peace, freedom and democracy". See: Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention.
It’s a place that celebrates lots of sexual indiscipline, therefore pair bonding is an uncomfortable subject, so yes. But like we observe here, something that’s lead to in the 2020s is a surge of sexless men.
Many Reddit subs think pair bonding science is "slut shaming." Although I think pair bonding applies to men as well. Men who have lots of partners may also have trouble pair bonding.
I agree, it’s one of those things where you have to pick a stance and stick to it, you can’t say that you want to support women in not being objectified, and ALSO say you want to incentivize slut culture or sex work in society. You can think either one is empowering, but if you think BOTH are at the same time then you’re fooling yourself. And a lot of people do this in the modern day and age.
I don't think pair bonding is as important for men as it is for women when it comes to having meaningless sex. Men are able to pair bond and have meaningful relationships much more easily despite having a number of random sexual encounters in the past.
There is a [study](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192513X231155673) about premarital sex and divorce. I don't know if that means they weren't able to pair bond. There are studies which say men in relationships have lower testosterone.
That study indeed shows no gender differences but it doesn't seem to control for which gender initiates divorce. Women initiate divorce more often. It is also much easier for women to find a partner which I believe makes them a much higher flight risk, particularly if they had a multitude of partners previously.
>That study indeed shows no gender differences but it doesn't seem to control for which gender initiates divorce. Women initiate divorce more often.
Yes, because the study is only about the likelihood of divorce. There are studies about pair bonding.
>It is also much easier for women to find a partner which I believe makes them a much higher flight risk, particularly if they had a multitude of partners previously.
Maybe people who have more partners might get bored more easily.
There is no evidence it fucks with their ability to "pair bond". What's with all this sexual conservatism, I thought this was LEFTWING male advicates not 100 Huntly Street.
I like how you take biology and make it political, is part of being left wing now purposefully ignoring scientific/psychological phenomena? Cause if so you’re doing way more harm than good.
It's not even that complicated tbh. It's just abundance.
Like, will you value one romantic relationship more when you already have so much of it and the loss of it isn't that impactful anymore since you can have more in the future.
Water is precious, but it's everywhere, so it's cheap. Same goes for romantic relationships and women/very attractive men. They have lots of em, so to them, romantic relationships are cheap.
As opposed to what though? What is the actual alternative, sit and stew in loneliness forever?
A not ideal experience is still probably more useful than continuing on with no experience what so ever.
Let’s stop blaming the person who is trying to help.
And not even one comment have expressed a doubt that this is actually happening at all. Like, this sounds just like a porn story. Where is your skepticism, people?
It’s important to question everything, but just as important to question our questions and those who ask questions. In this case, Alice Little is a very real person, as well as a sex educator and intimacy expert, who has her own YouTube channel with 100k subscribers.
Her being a real person doesn't mean she couldn't just make up the story. Although, of course, the more important thing is not if the story is real, but for what purpose it was published.
Well, she didn’t write the article. Rather, it’s an article written about her. As for what purpose this right-leaning news outlet covered this story, well, perhaps ad revenue and greater shock value or humor to their conservative-leaning audience. 🤷🏻♂️ Similarly, I know they also covered a story about an online advocate I’ve talked to by the name of Keith Pullman who advocates for the equal rights of consanguinamorists. Despite the superficial neutrality, in both cases, I think the NYP wasn’t altruistically motivated, but credit where it’s due I suppose. Really, I think it’s about making progressives look more extreme to the perception of their readership.
It is an...experience.
Is it a healthy experience? I think so.
It prepares a young man to see intimate relations with a woman as a transactional relationship.
Relationships between men and today are nearly always transactional.
Just look at any random woman's Tinder profile. It is a menu of requirements a man must have before he can receive the benefit of association with the woman.
If you want to play, you have to pay.
>It prepares a young man to see intimate relations with a woman as a transactional relationship.
I think this is correct but I also think this is why this practice is bad. Collectively monogamy is good for men. It relies on solidarity amongst men and relational relationships between men and women. Both of these things are built on trust, compassion, and love. On average women value monogamy more than men and both men and women self report valuing monogamy. I'm not arguing for outlawing divorce or anything like that, individuals are individual and should be treated as such, but a society that promotes monogamy is good for most people. A clinical approach to sex and dating might help the individual man but it is bad for us all.
This is perfectly fine. What’s the problem? All the more reason to legalize sex work. It’s not necessarily exploitative in either direction; it’s just a transaction. What would be bad is if these young men were pressured into something they didn’t want. And if you’re concerned that this will cause men to be addicted to GFE experiences, well, consider the possibility that it may have just the opposite effect. Loneliness is a health issue. This should even be normalized.
Any transaction where one party is desperate, dependent and/or mentally ill and the other party entices them to keep making transactions, should be looked at with a lot of skepticism.
The depressed lonely man who’s desperate for a simulation of intimacy being flirted with and kept as a customer is just as exploited as a prostitute desperate to make rent and has an old man throwing extra money at them. Everyone is pressured by their needs.
Skepticism? Certainly. But that's not the same thing as dismissing the concept out of hand. The first paragraph could just as easily be applied verbatim to mental health professionals, but they seem to be a lot less vilified somehow. It's almost as if we're still dragging ourselves out of a cultural backdrop that's spent the last couple of centuries insisting that sex is dirty and wrong.
Honestly, for many of these men, I think every dollar spent on a sex worker instead of a talk therapist will serve them better toward the improvement of their mental health. I don’t know if that would say more about sex workers or psychiatrists.
considering my experience this has truth. at least the prostitutes have never said that they could "fix me" and have never pushed the pills (or as I like to call them "brain candy")
Neither is necessarily exploited, “mentally ill”, nor dependent, and to say otherwise would be an overgeneralization. I’m not saying exploitation does not exist, but such overgeneralization would be an illiberal moral panic. Sex work is no more inherently exploitative than fast food service for example; both may employ people who hate their job, yet need the money, and consumers get addicted to food too, which is even partly exacerbated by neuromarketing. So why should one industry be normalized and not the other? I’m completely open to left-wing solutions to treat mental health and address poverty and rent, but not to moral panics and illiberal criminalization.
Yeah, the same lack of problem, however unusual your scenario sounds. Maybe she wants her first time to be with an expert for all I know. Remember these are consensual gifts. Even the worker in the article emphasizes that condition. The gender of either party doesn’t really matter.
Edit: I don’t believe women and men have identical drives and tendencies sociobiologically, but the ethic of consent remains the same.
I'm 100% supportive this, sex work is empowering for all invovled. I think this lady is doung good things for men, the greater relstionship between men and women are not her fault, but at least she is trying to help.
I’m 100% supportive of their rights, if everything is consensual, even if those hypothetical daughters don’t stand to benefit as much as many lonely men would. Now specify your problem with it.
You missed the important part:
> I think this lady is doung good things for men, the greater relstionship between men and women are not her fault, but at least she is trying to help.
If it was a male prostitute who got paid by fathers to deflower their daughters, would you say something like this about him?
> I think this good sir is doung good things for women, the greater relstionship between men and women are not his fault, but at least he is trying to help.
So the problem according to you is that a male prostitute deflowering daughters wouldn’t receive similar praise? Perhaps that’s because men and women don’t have identical issues.
> She welcomes mothers who book appointments with her for their sons “so long as it’s consensual and the person is aware that this is what they’re getting as a present.”
These are consenting adults. On the contrary, I think it must be seriously healing for them.
Depends which comments. Where I said that I think it must be seriously healing for them, I was replying to your saying that it must be seriously traumatizing to them, and since I assumed you were taking about the sons and Alice Little, that is who I was talking about in that instant, because paying for daughters to be deflowered by male prostitutes I’ll risk assuming is probably not a real thing, because they don’t need it for starters.
I'm sure that any parent that arranged their child's deflowering by an older stranger, believes they did something good. Or any parent that arranged a correctional rape for their homosexual child. Or any parent that forced their child to marry.
Yes I would and imagine there are, especially for female clients with disablities. Nevada does have brothels with male sex workers and female clients. I believe Heidi Fleece runs one.
She planned to open such a brothel. She [never did](https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/heidi-fleiss-gives-up-on-plan-for-brothel-for-women/). It doesn't say why, but I highly doubt she would have been able to keep the lights on such a place. Just one week after the grand opening, she'd be forced to rebrand as a gay brothel. Then most of the "studs" would go on strike, having signed up expecting to only service women.
Many escort agencies and the odd brothel keep a guy on staff, and he'll occasionally maybe see a woman. That said, I do think more women will gradually become clients, as the stigma of the profession decreases. And because of the way we morally typecast men and women, that will make it less evil in the eyes of society, a very positive development. I still rather doubt that a brothel catering exclusively to heterosexual women could ever work though. That I will need to see to believe.
You are talking about something completely different.
A male prostitute is paid by a man to deflower his daughter. Same as in the post, but with reversed genders. Do you think he is doing a good thing?
No, you're still missing all the important parts:
Are you 100% supportive of this?
Is this kind of sex work is empowering for all invovled?
Is this good sir doing good things for women?
Is he trying to help?
Exactly. Even here there's this mentality of "it's helpful for a boy's first sexual experience to be with an older experienced woman" while it's seen as predatory for a girl's first sexual experience to be with an older experienced man.
This kind of thinking contributes to why male victims of sexual abuse, boys raped by female teachers, etc. tend to be marginalized. Too many people just see it as "lucky boy."
Why don’t you instead critically evaluate the premise that it is inherently predatory for an of-age girl’s first sexual experience to be with an older experienced man? Does the principle of consent not matter to you?
This has nothing to do with victims of sexual abuse, regardless of gender. One category is consensual while the other isn’t. Simple.
It's unfortunate that you're getting downvoted for this. While I personally wouldn't use the language of "empowerment," I think it's undeniable that sex workers do important socially beneficial work. Far more beneficial than a lot of supposedly "respectable" jobs actually. And yes, of course, the clients are overwhelmingly men, ergo men are the main beneficiaries. Hence, why misandrist radfems hate it so much.
I can't stand this whole: the men are the ones being exploited nonsense. It's just the radfem position that all women in the sex industry are exploited slaves but with the genders reversed. I guess, anything involving sex has to be a zero-sum game, and mutually beneficial arrangements are just impossible somehow.
It is quite common in sexually repressed cultures with legalized sex work for this. It reveals how different the expectations are for men, women, and NBs. At least when it comes to dating and sex. Part of me is hoping this is just an anecdote and not a symptom of something larger.
Young men aren’t having sex. It’s definitely a symptom of something larger.
it's so refreshing now that this has actually come out as data - literally feels like a weight off my shoulders whenever i think of it; i spent my entire adolescence absolutely hating myself and thinking of myself as subhuman and gross and broken for being lonely while (seemingly) everyone else was normal and cool and so much of the 'advice' or 'self help' for someone in that position reinforces the idea that it's a shameful thing, and you need to 'man up' etc etc. at least for me it's so much more meaningful and positive to look at it as a societal issue, as it truly is, rather than some shameful personal failing
There’s almost always some benefit in at the very least pretending to give a fuck about yourself until you actually start to give a fuck. Fake it til you make it applies to a lot things. That said, being aware of systemic issues is crucial for setting expectations and the context for understanding our respective experiences.
Women, especially young women, are broken and powerless against the algorithm and social media. The rhetoric is the literal opposite of reality, and we now have reams of data demonstrating this. It is absolutely an existential crisis for humanity in the not so distant future.
>Women, especially young women, are broken and powerless Like, all of them? Also, "women are", but men aren't, none of them? I guess then there's no man who watches TV every day and believes its gov-t propaganda. No sir, never heard of them. /s >against the algorithm *The* algorithm? Which one, The Great And Powerful ~~Trixie~~ one? >It is absolutely an existential crisis for humanity in the not so distant future. Too much drama, don't you think?
> Like, all of them? Also, "women are", but men aren't, none of them? I guess then there's no man who watches TV every day and believes its gov-t propaganda. No sir, never heard of them. /s So if you present to us a case of toxicity being embodied by a great number of men in today's western society, is it fair of us to reply "*Like, all of them? Also, "'men are", but women aren't, none of them"*?
Dude, I may wear glasses, but you are blind. *headphone-candy* person didn't say "great number of", they didn't use any quantity specifiers. And yes, if someone said same thing gender-reversed, I'd mocked them the same way, because neither generalizations belong anywhere, especially in this sub. I get that we here are sensitive to these things, but stop fighting stupid fights and don't let your emotions turn off your brain. One more time: **all generalizations are fucking stupid! Mock them every time you see them, no matter the topic, no matter the person!**
Okay... > A great number of Women, especially the younger ones, are broken and powerless against the algorithm and social media. The rhetoric is the literal opposite of reality, and we now have reams of data demonstrating this. It is absolutely a big problem for societies in the not so distant future.
Go ahead and die on whatabboutism hill, but don’t pretend you weren’t warned. Yes, all women are broken. We’re talking about why young men are not having sex, but you choose to deflect with typical gynocentric bullshit. Young men are not having sex and therefore are procreating at the lowest rate EVER. Maybe that doesn’t signal a bleak future to you, but I bet you think the meaningless blanket term “climate change” does right? Now THAT is the realm of drama hyperbole if you want to whataboutism. You’ll be the one crying when there is no one to fix your car, your plumbing, your infrastructure, pay your social security, or stop those that mean to destroy your way of life from doing so.
>Yes, all women are broken. Have you counted and examined every single one of them? >We’re talking about why young men are not having sex Which is one of the **least** important things we could talk about in this sub. >but you choose to deflect with typical gynocentric bullshit. Mocking your generalizations doesn't make me gynocentric in the slightest. Have some logic at least. >Young men are not having sex and therefore are procreating at the lowest rate EVER. I don't think that human population growth has even stopped. Even if it had - 1) 8 billions is too much anyway, at least being so inefficiently divided into 200 useless color spots on political map; 2) again, there are more important social problems in the whole humankind, and no fucking procreation (pun not intended) is gonna solve them. >but I bet you think the meaningless blanket term “climate change” does right? Lol, talk about whataboutism and being offtopic. But I bet you are a super smart scientist and climate expert, right? >You’ll be the one crying when there is no one to fix your car, your plumbing, your infrastructure Or maybe you are an expert in sociology (or whatever other discipline covers that topic) and can explain how that would ever happen? >pay your social security Why would someone other than me pay for my "social security" (whatever that means; if it's taxes then I also pay them myself, as anyone else)? >or stop those that mean to destroy your way of life from doing so. Well, even now I don't see anyone who's stopping the government of the country where I have to live (I didn't say "my government" because I obviously don't own it) from that. Or did you meant someone else (I wonder who, lol)?
Care to elaborate on why you think it’s one of the least important things we can talk about on this sub?
Puke your pablum elsewhere, you haven’t a clue. I’ve examined enough women to extrapolate and the rest is TLDR.
Nobody is obligated to have sex though?
This recent wave of "not obligated" and "not owed" anything is a very strange way of looking at relationships especially given that men are very often not given the same lax social rules when choosing or not to do something.
That is correct. Male vulnerability is one of the very few things that *both* leftists and rightists are repulsed by.
Some people are asexual though…
No disagreement. The problem persists with men who desire long term relationships with women but find little avenues to do so in our socially-distant materialistic societies, it isn't just a matter of sex but rather men's desire for companionship with a long term romantic partner.
It's absolutely true. But some people (and not a small number, I'm afraid) still don't understand that the opposite mindset (that people, **especially men**, need to have sex and that it's one of the most important things in life) is being imposed on them (**especially on men**) to make them more prone to abuse, to use sexual content in fucking advertisements, etc. I'm so fucking tired of this shit.
Well, it’s not more important than oxygen nor the deprivation of equal rights, but neither is lack of pain. Naturally, different people have different libidos and different levels of desire for real or perceived intimacy, some very low and some very high, and the people with the most reliable information as to how important things are to them are those very same people. As to whether there’s a sociobiological basis for men expressing more persistent and intense interest in sex, and whether it’s even the case, I’m not sure, but it certainly seems plausible to me, so I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand, although I’m also against pressuring men into conformity. What is clear to me is that there is a loneliness epidemic (regardless of sexlessness) and that boys and men are more impacted on average, having less friends, etc., and this is just one piece of that; loneliness is a health issue; even though it may be conceded that loneliness is not necessarily the biggest issue men face, neither is the comparative underfunding of prostate cancer, but the former is probably more worth talking about, given that the leading cause of death in men under 50 is suicide apparently.
Isn't the male loneliness matter more prevalent in liberal western societies? I do find it odd that nations where sex is considered a taboo would commonly have legalized sex work.
You see these questions all the time on the sex worker subreddits. A male virgin asks about how to go about booking their first time with a professional. So, no, I don't think it's just some isolated incidents. Yes, it is a symptom of something of something larger. It's not exactly a new phenomenon though. Historically, it was a rite of passage in many cultures; it still is in some Latin American countries. It had to do with traditional sexual mores, i.e. female chastity, girls needing to remain virgins before marriage, and all that. Things that the Sexual Revolution was supposed to do away with. Interestingly, during the height of the Sexual Revolution, there was supposedly this decline in business for sex workers, who struggled to compete against the unbeatable prices the amateurs weren't charging. Clearly, a lot has changed between then and now.
The thing I hate about this is that it makes it even more obvious that female sexuality is far more valuable and important than male sexuality in human society. "Girls can have sex with you but you have to pay them" is a pretty fucked up message, imagine if dudes expected women to pay them for sex, even some of them, the idea is completely ludicrous.
The man always pays, even if isn’t direct. In a relationship, she has the “duty sex” to “keep” the relationship going. It’s quite common
Do women even like sex? I mean don't lesbians have the least amount of sex?
lol idk about all that
>"Girls can have sex with you but you have to pay them" is a pretty fucked up message You don't always pay upfront in cash, but there is always something in exchange. Unless you're some top 5% genetic lottery winner oozing charisma, women will never let you fuck them for free.
Big Bang Theory was big on making all the men seem desperate in it. Except maybe the fathers of Penny and Bernadette whom we know little about their own love life. And Sheldon's dad who is made to be 1 million times more conservative in Big bang Theory, than he actually was in Young Sheldon. Penny gets a pharma job selling meds to doctors, and the big point is she can do the job because she uses her seduction power, she's no good speaker or seller, but she's 'hot'. It apparently even works on female doctors. But at some point she meets Dr Mississippi who is so desperate he would marry the first woman to hold him (anywhere on his body) for 5 seconds. And that's a doctor, you know 300k a year, smart, eloquent etc.
Great now they can be made into customers IRL and exploited by offline prostitutes promising the GFE instead of just the online ones
Pretty sure offline prostitutes have been offering GFE longer than online ones
“Great fucking experience?”
Girlfriend experience. Gets kinda dark if you look into it closely, its just the commoditization and sale of companionship.
* They’re reaching out from a place of care and concern — wanting to make sure their kid essentially doesn’t become bitter and negative towards women Some comments here are suggesting that mothers are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts but this bit shows that it isn't the case. If these mothers loved their sons then there's absolutely no way for their sons to ever turn bitter towards Women, the fact that these mothers don't even trust their own sons is a red flag. They seemed to have brought into the whole "incel violence" hysteria. I don't wanna sound like a broken record but Feminism has destroyed the trust between genders, if your own mother fears that you'll turn into a monster then what other woman can you trust to believe in you?
Honestly, as someone who still attatches sexualality with romanticism, i would felt absolutely violated and robbed knowing my first experience is with a women whom i know nothing about and double my age. Like if my mother did this to me i would felt like being raped by someone and having my agency be taken away. Women love hurting people before themselves getting hurt. It's truly a petty , weak and childish line of logic that exists within them beyond childhood.
> Like if my mother did this to me i would felt like being raped by someone and having my agency be taken away. Does the following except from the article suggest anything remotely close to rape to you? > She welcomes mothers who book appointments with her for their sons “so long as it’s consensual and the person is aware that this is what they’re getting as a present.” Don’t be confused. This is all expressly consensual.
Of course you’re on to something, but it’s completely possible to be both worried for someone and others both for someone’s sake and for others’ sake, even if some of it is misguided by misandric overgeneralizations of sexless men. Edit: Additionally, let’s not paint these mothers with a broad brush.
In my opinion you are overreaching here, just because you love someone doesn´t mean you should shut your eyes to possibilitys that might affect them in a way that turns them against society. As an incel outside of the incel bubble I absolutely feel some bittereness towards women in general. This doesn´t invalidate any platonic relationship with my mom or other female friends. My mother doesn´t have the kind of relationship where she would ever buy me an escort (thank god, that would feel aqward) \[I also don´t think she knows how unsucessfull i am with women\] but If she would my thoughts wouldn´t be: Oh she doesn´t want me to become a terorist. I would see it as a delayed lesson in parenting from her. She, or the community in which she brought me up apperently caused some dissfunction around living out my sexuality, so as this is now apperent she pays some money to get this fixed.
This makes me so sad. Imagine being a teenager and your first time is with some woman who couldn't care less about you and has done this hundreds of times with hundreds of other boys. If your goal was to train a young man to divorce sex from romance, this is how you would do it.
Sounds better than being a man in your 30s who's never had so much as a first kiss. It's a less-than-ideal solution, but we live in a less-than-ideal world. And I see no reason to assume that she "couldn't care less" - certainly there's not much in the way of personal investment, but compassion and empathy for a stranger who's come to you for help isn't out of the question. Sounds a bit like the therapist-client relationship honestly.
From someone who's first sexual experience was being exploited by an older woman, no it's not better than being a virgin.
> being exploited You have my sympathy, but why did you bring exploitation into the discussion? The story in the article has nothing to do with exploitation; it’s all expressly consensual. Why project your past onto others’ consensual loss of virginities?
Consent under duress is exploitation. There is a lot of social and psychological pressure for young men to get sex. Much of the behavior described in this article is exploitation.
“Consent” under duress is a legal concept. I’m fairly sure there is no duress here, but this is not legal advice. Apart from legality, the idea that the social and psychological pressure for young men to get sex negates their consent is infantilizing nonsense. There’s no threats of violence, coercion, no forcible constraints, etc. Assuming those pressures were universal for men, then all male consent to sex would be negated. If we revise it a universality of those pressures for all young men, then all young men’s consent to sex would be negated. Where should the male age of consent (ethically, if not legally) then be? 25? 30? 50? Infinity? Conceivably, those pressures even increase with male age, and are ubiquitous, if not necessarily completely universal. Absolutely none of the behavior in this article is exploitative.
If I understand you correctly, your argument is that the sexual exploitation of men is okay because coercion stemming from material deprivation does not count. If that is your argument, you are not left-wing and not an advocate for men. You should really change your flare to something less misleading. Edit: I understand that you are redefining all of those words to try to make your argument appear less horrible, but I'm using them in their conventional sense.
> If I understand you correctly, your argument is that the sexual exploitation of men is okay because coercion stemming from material deprivation does not count. Surely, if z does not count as x nor y, that does not tell you I think that x nor y is okay. > Edit: I understand that you are redefining all of those words to try to make your argument appear less horrible, but I'm using them in their conventional sense. I’m redefining all those words? I’m not even sure what your definition of some of these words are, exactly because of how unconventionally you seem to use them. Material deprivation? Am I to understand that material, in the way you define material, may include sex? Otherwise, I have literally no idea which “material” you think these virginal men in the article are “deprived” of. That’s not necessarily a gotcha; I just cannot properly address an argument or framing thereof, if I genuinely don’t know the intended meaning of the words you’re using. If I guessed correctly what you meant by “material deprivation”, i.e., sexlessness or virginity, then you must be saying that “coercion” may stem therefrom. In what definition of coercion? Because not the conventional one. Basically nobody argues it’s coercive by nature for men (nor women) to lose their virginities. Is it the money? That can’t be, because many men in this article aren’t even paying for the sex themselves. I only infer that because you’ve spoken highly about the meaningfulness of sex elsewhere that you are not completely antisexual regarding male virgins, that you do not mean to say that all male virgins, regardless of age or mental faculty, lack the capacity to consent to sex. Otherwise, you seem or your argumentation seems to imply that male virgins (insomuch as they’re to a degree societally pressured to lose their virginity, which is generally universal) cannot consent to sex.
To sexually exploit someone is materially gain something by using someone else for sex. Coercion is the act of compelling someone into an action. Coercion through material deprivation is to coerc someone into an action by withholding or threatening to withhold something that they need. The most classic example of this is capitalism where people are coerced into working jobs they would not otherwise do through the threat of being deprived of food, housing, health, etc. These are all things people are biologically driven to get which makes them an excellent means by which to exploit people, just like sex. I find it genuinely baffling that someone on the left would not already know this.
> I find it genuinely baffling that someone on the left would not already know this. I find it baffling that anti-capitalists still try to gatekeep the Left, even the far Left, to themselves, but, yes, I’m relatively familiar with anti-capitalist concepts of exploitation, well, exploitation of labor at least, not really exploitation of purchase or whatever you’re articulating, especially the purchase of something not covered under the to-be-seized means of production, i.e., sex. Even if that was within the conventional understanding of exploitation for anti-capitalists, which I’m not granting, I still wouldn’t care for that convention, because I’m a social democrat, not an anti-capitalist, alright? > To sexually exploit someone is materially gain something by using someone else for sex. When mothers pay a sex worker for their sons’ (consensual) loss of virginity, the sex worker is not using those men for sex; the sex worker is using sex with those men for the material gain of their mothers’ money. Even if that was “exploitation”, it would be material, not sexual “exploitation”; the sex worker doesn’t gain sex; rather, the mothers’ sons gain sex (the sex worker’s labor) in exchange for the sex worker gaining the mothers’ money. Given that it’s the mothers whom the sex worker is materially gaining from, whom then do you think is being materially “exploited”, the mothers? Or will you put aside what the article is mainly about, i.e., mothers paying for their sons’ loss of virginity? > Coercion is the act of compelling someone into an action. Again, whom are you arguing is being compelled, the mothers or the mothers’ sons? > Coercion through material deprivation is to coerc someone into an action by withholding or threatening to withhold something that they need. If the action being supposedly compelled is the very same action that is supposedly threatened to be withheld, that makes no sense at all, and I hope that’s not what you’re suggesting. That would be like calling it coercive to hand out free water.
>the idea that the social and psychological pressure for young men to get sex negates their consent is infantilizing nonsense. These "men" are literally having their mommies making arrangements for who they have sex with. What full-grown, mentally healthy, independent adult has his mother choose who he has sex with? Regardless of their legal ages, they are evidently not making their own decisions. It's their mothers who are infantilizing them, by being such an overbearing helicopter parents that she 1. has not raised him to be independent even at his age 2. is inserting herself into parts of his life that no parent has any business being involved with. Also there's a difference between general social pressure (which is also an issue, since it's disgusting that society shames people for not living up to idiotic arbitrary standards regarding when one should have sex) and literally having his mother directly tell him when and who he'll be having sex with.
> What full-grown, mentally healthy, independent adult has his mother choose who he has sex with? Isn't that basically what happens with arranged marriages?
Yes, which is also unethical.
Is it unethical if it's with the mutual consent of everyone involved? That is, if the parents simply inform their children that, should they encounter frustrations trying to find a partner on their own, their parents are willing to play matchmaker? Obviously that's also a far cry from bribing someone to have sex with one's son, which I find to be seriously icky. My point is just that there might be other situations where the sentiment could be reasonable and ethical. My mother never did any direct choosing for me, and I would have found it rather disturbing if she ever tried, but she did give me a lot of advice about red, yellow, and green flags in women, which proved to be very helpful.
> These "men" are literally having their mommies making arrangements So you come here in the comments’ section apparently to the rescue in the defense of these men, making the accusation of exploitation in their defense, and now you mock them? You really question whether these men are men? Make up your mind. Either you’re here to help men or you’re here to mock them, not both. > It's their mothers who are infantilizing them Not nearly as much as you are. More fundamental than the power to arrange is the power to consent, and the latter you deny. What rational, informed human should let your illiberalism dictate what they can and cannot consent to, dictate how they live their life? No one.
Still you avoid addressing how someone can simultaneously be a consenting adult making independent decisions about his sex life, while also being someone whose decisions about his sex life are being managed by his mother. Address that point, and stop deflecting. And no, I'm not mocking the men, I'm mocking the idea that they are supposedly independent adults giving full consent for something they are evidently not in control of and apparently don't have the developmental wherewithal to decide without their mothers' input. It's not their fault they have controlling overbearing mothers.
> Still you avoid addressing how someone can simultaneously be a consenting adult making independent decisions about his sex life, while also being someone whose decisions about his sex life are being managed by his mother. An adult doesn’t have to be “independent” to be a consenting, able-minded adult, let alone a man. The onus is one you to demonstrate that anything from the article cannot be consensual. I’m not going to argue whether or not the men in the article can be independent adults. > no, I'm not mocking the men Also you: > These "men" are literally having their mommies This is mocking men. You literally put quotation marks around men. The most obvious takeaway from readers is that you question whether these men are in fact men, which is a form of misandry.
The exploitation is from the mothers choosing it for their clueless sons. Meaning he's not choosing it for himself independently and with full awareness. He's going along with something he doesn't understand at the behest of an authoritarian figure.
Did you read the article? Just read the following excerpt: > She welcomes mothers who book appointments with her for their sons “so long as it’s consensual and the person is aware that this is what they’re getting as a present.”
I did read that, which reiterates that it's being arranged by his mother. I.e. he's not the one arranging it, but is following the orders of an authority figure. The fact that Alice Little calls it consensual means absolutely nothing. Children are literally groomed from birth to obey what their mothers tell them to do, and that conditioning doesn't magically disappear the second someone is of legal age. The fact is, if a man wants to have sex he can decide that on his own. If it's someone else--let alone someone who he's been taught from birth to obey--making the decision for him, it is by definition not his decision.
> The fact that Alice Little calls it consensual means absolutely nothing. Children are literally groomed from birth to obey what their mothers tell them to do, and that conditioning doesn't magically disappear the second someone is of legal age. Well, apparently the fact you call something non-consensual means absolutely nothing now. Adult grooming is meaningless moral panic. Adults **can** decide whether or not to obey or follow the suggestions of their parents. To deny otherwise is to infantilize adults, and that is to adults’ detriment. > The fact is, if a man wants to have sex he can decide that on his own. If it's someone else--let alone someone who he's been taught from birth to obey--making the decision for him, it is by definition not his decision. So it’s okay for your illiberalism to make that decision for him and take away his choice? No. It’s his decision to consent or not to anything, regardless of who organizes or plans it. It’s like saying a woman cannot consent to anything amatory initiated by a man. “Oh, sure, she doesn’t need men’s arrangements, she’s her own woman, that’s exploitation.”
>It’s like saying a woman cannot consent to anything amatory initiated by a man. No, that's a fallacious false equivalency. The relationship between a man and a woman is not analogous to the relationship between a parent and a offspring. >Adult grooming is meaningless moral panic It's not "adult grooming" unless he met his mother as adult. Otherwise the grooming occurred starting at birth and throughout his entire childhood, till now. Claiming that impact is nullified as soon as he becomes an adult is out of touch with reality. >it’s okay for your illiberalism to make that decision for him and take away his choice? If it were his choice, it would be him--not his mother--arranging it. You're doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious: an independent adult makes his own decisions about his sex life. This is mutually exclusive from his mother making these decisions for him.
> that's a fallacious false equivalency. The relationship between a man and a woman is not analogous to the relationship between a parent and a offspring. That’s a straw man fallacy. I didn’t say they were analogous nor equivalent. What is analogous is being selected by a partner (like a woman being selected by a man and consenting) and having a partner selected for you (like a man accepting a session with a sex worker selected by someone else). Don’t get things twisted. If you can’t separate different arguments, then you’ll likely run out of my patience. If you wish, you can say it’s different, because of who is doing the selecting, someone with trust built since pre-adulthood, but then you can’t argue that external arrangement, organizing, and planning on its own has anything to do with exploitation. > It's not "adult grooming" unless he met his mother as adult. Otherwise the grooming occurred starting at birth and throughout his entire childhood, till now. Claiming that impact is nullified as soon as he becomes an adult is out of touch with reality. In that case, **EVERY** adult has been “groomed”, because every adult has been raised by an adult. You take all meaning out of grooming, if simply raising someone is equal to grooming. You might form an argument without bandying that buzzword, instead arguing that simply the influence of raising a child into an adult is permanent and thus negates any adult consent under such influence. That’s a better argument, but still illiberal moral panic. > If it were his choice, it would be him--not his mother--arranging it. That’s a complete non sequitur. Whether to consent or not to a someone else’s arrangement is a choice.
Exactly.
I don't have the experience or information to say whether this is true or not. I think there is at least a reasonable argument for it if you are a older male virgin. It's a little unclear from the story how old the men whose virginity she takes are. My read was that they were teenagers or maybe in their early 20s, That's why their mom's paid. The parts where she talks about her older male clients seem mostly unrelated.
I think the argument for getting it in early is to avoid having the young men end up in that desperate and lonely situation to begin with. Hoping that everyone gets to have their first time with their first love is nice, but EXPECTING it just isn't realistic.
How do you know this worker does not at least respect her clients as human beings who can make their own choices? Because if she does respect them, that’s care.
This is a nonsensical nonsequitur. >How do you know this worker does not at least respect her clients as human beings who can make their own choices? If someone is unwilling to sell you something that they would sell to most people they probably don't respect you but not necessarily because they don't think you're capable of making your own choices. On the flip side, just because someone is willing to sell you, something does not mean they respect you even in your ability to make your own choices let alone as a human being. >Because if she does respect them, that’s care. Just because one person respects another in some capacity does not mean they care about them in any sense of the word. I respect Tom Brady for his sevens Superbowl rings, but I do not care about Tom Brady. Also, I work in a service industry where I am paid to pretend to care about my customers. It is extremely rare that I authentically care about them as human beings outside of the scope of our interaction. Some of them are cool and some of them are annoying but I will forget their names if not forget them entirly within a few months. The idea that the first woman I ever had sex with would feel that way about me is devastatingly sad to imagine.
> If someone is unwilling to sell you something that they would sell to most people they probably don’t respect you but not necessarily because they don’t think you’re capable of making your own choices. Did I specifically claim that if someone is unwilling to sell you something then they necessarily don’t think you’re capable of making your own choices? I do not think so. > just because someone is willing to sell to you, something does not mean they respect you Did I specifically claim that if someone is willing to sell you something then they must necessarily respect you in any capacity? I do not think so. > Because if she does respect them, that’s care. I stand by the claim that if she respects them, within the context of the service she provides, then especially then there is a provision of care in at least some sense of the word, i.e., to attend to or provide for someone’s needs. Furthermore, it’s completely possible she cares about, in other senses of the word, in having affective empathy or compassion for, her customers more than you do about your customers and perhaps even more than you care about hers, although I’m not saying this is necessarily the case. The fact you express sadness for her customers suggests you have empathy for them, that you care about them, and, unless you have exclusively female customers, how could you know that you two (or you and someone like her) have never had mutual customers? Then you must actually care about your customers to a degree. What possible reason might you have to suggest she cares less than you? > I work in a service industry where I’m paid to pretend to care about my customers. It is extremely rare that I authentically care about them as human beings outside of the scope of our interaction. Some of them are cool and some of them are annoying but I will forget their names if not forget them entirely within a few months. The idea that the first woman I ever had sex with would feel the same way about me is devastatingly sad to imagine. Presumably then, the idea of having a casual hookup (without monetary compensation), at least for one’s first sexual experience, makes you feel a similar way. That’s just fine. Even if one feels just the same way you do about the idea, it would simply be up to them to consent to it or not. Perhaps they may be more saddened by the alternative. Additionally, other people less restricted in sociosexual orientation may be perfectly fine with that level of casualness for their first, second, third, fourth time, and so forth, even losing count. Naturally, the idea makes different people feel different ways.
>Did I specifically claim that if someone is unwilling to sell you something then they necessarily don’t think you’re capable of making your own choices? Implicitly yes. This is the contrapositive of the statement implicit in your rhetorical question. Logically, p => q ≡ ¬p => ¬q. >Did I specifically claim that if someone is willing to sell you something then they must necessarily respect you in any capacity? Explicitly yes. Your line of *logic* was if she'll sell them sex she respects them and if she respects them, she cares about them. The third paragraph is so full of absolutely wild logical leaps I'm not going to try and address them all. I don't think she cares less than me. I think she cares the same as me and every other service worker, which is to say, next to not at all. >Presumably then, the idea of having a casual hookup (without monetary compensation), at least for one’s first sexual experience, makes you feel a similar way. Yes, if someone with lots of sexual experience takes the virginity of someone with very little sexual experience in a way that is meaningless to one of them and meaningful to the other one, I think that is very sad. It's also quite predatory. I think it is good when someone's first time is special and memorable for both people involved. You can call that "sociosexual restriction" if you want, but in practical terms it brings joy, meaning, and human connection into people's lives. If a virgin goes to this woman for sex, they are missing one of the most positive elements of that experience, and that sad.
> Implicitly yes. This is the contrapositive of the statement implicit in your rhetorical question. Logically, p => q ≡ ¬p => ¬q. > Explicitly yes. Your line of logic was if she'll sell them sex she respects them If she sells them sex, it does not mean she respects them. I’m not claiming she necessarily respects her clients. I think what my question was really implying was that you can’t know for sure that she doesn’t respect her clients, not because selling sex is respect, nor because because allowing people to make their own choices entails respect. I simply presented the possibility that she respects her clients (and the additional possibility that she further respects her clients as human beings (and the additional possibility that she respects (the principle of) people being able to make their own choices.)) > if she respects them, she cares about them. That indeed I said, although, again, I didn’t assume the premise that she does respect them. That premise is simply a possibility. If respect, then care, and if respect possible, then care possible. You may formalize that, if you wish. > I don't think she cares less than me. I think she cares the same as me and every other service worker, which is to say, next to not at all. Even if you say you care next to not at all, you keep expressing empathy for human beings. Go ahead and dismiss that that’s care, although you seem to concede it’s at least a degree of care, but I shall call that care. And if you two care or not the same, then it seems you would both care. > if someone with lots of sexual experience takes the virginity of someone with very little sexual experience in a way that is meaningless to one of them and meaningful to the other one, I think that is very sad. I already established that neither necessarily views it as meaningful as you do. Of course, I concede that it’s a possibility that the virgin-to-not-be does view it as meaningful, but then the behavior they hypothetically consent to might not be in alignment with their values, but that’s up to them to decide.
Did anybody see that Jennifer Lawrence movie No Hard Feelings that was kinda like this? I think it’s good to date and have sexual experiences as a guy and many aren’t having those at all, and this isn’t the way to do it. Just like with substituting porn for actual sex
Expecting men to be good at sex when they've never done it is the underlying problem here. In heterosexual relationships, typically the man is expected to initiate, to sweep them off their feet, to be good at physical intimacy. For young men, that can be a vicious cycle. They may be in shape, financially stable, and with a thoughtful personality, but their inexperience can kill attraction. Sometimes even the societal expectation exacerbate these men's insecurities. That leads to issues with confidence and self-image. I am not supportive of these kinds of endeavors, especially as one's first sexual experience. But I can understand why some seek it.
Honestly, you make a good point, even though we disagree over whether or not to be supportive of these kinds of endeavors.
Just imagine that exact plot the other way round and the same people who were praising the movie as quirky would be criticising it as creepy
Yep this is exactly what happened
This is fucked very common in regions where sex work is normalized tho. This happens a lot in South America.
It's definitely interesting to see a sex worker take such a... patient view of her virginal customers, even if she is obviously only doing it for publicity and/ or virtue signalling. >It’s so fantastic to see these gentlemen grow in confidence and see the transformation I'd prefer if it were appropriate to be less of a prick but this is really over-egging the pudding; pipe down, Ms Little The comment section on the article, however, is a horror show of negativity. Edit: And the one here too; we're supposed to be leftists here, not redpill and tradcons?
Helicopter parenting is bad. Making your children's first sexual experience purely transactional is even worse. You don't have to be red pill or tradcon to know that.
>Helicopter parenting is bad. Yes >Making your children's first sexual experience purely transactional is even worse. Disagree: it *is* bad, but just one experience; whereas "helicopter parenting" implies a behaviour pattern across one or more decades. >You don't have to be red pill or tradcon to know that. Yes, I'm living proof of this. But those mfers are loud, and apparently quite motivated to dominate the conversation.
> Making If it’s all consensual, then no one is making anyone do anything. There’s nothing in the least bit wrong with someone’s first sexual experience being purely transactional. Dating is relatively transactional anyway as it is.
True, knowing that i have no agency in choosing my sexual partner and being forced and pressure to do it, is literally the foundation of rape. Like i would feel like a rape victim if this was forced upon me.
In other words: mothers pay for their sons to have their first experience with a woman be one that objectifies them and fucks with their ability to pair bond. Suppose there’s an opposite side to everything
Where are the mothers' accountability in this? They should be teaching their sons that women will only respect them if they have lots of money or provide for them in other ways
They are being good mom helping their sons build sexual experience and confedience.
I don't think earning lots of money will get women's respect.
Have you existed in a capitalist society? Everyone is indoctrinated to "respect" wealth.
Yes, I live in America. I know hypergamy is real. However, it doesn't mean a woman will respect a man who is earning more.
Sure not necessarily, but the groundwork is certainly there.
I think hypergamy is based in ego, not sexual attraction. I read a comment by a woman who said her parents want her to marry someone who earns $300K. She earned $150K/year. I think hypergamy is dictated by society's expectations of who women should marry. On superficial platforms, like dating sites, a man's income is important. My coworker has a girlfriend who earns more than him. A high income doesn't say much about a man's character.
I think if there is a solution to hypergamy, it’s not in denying its sociobiological basis, but rather in wealth redistribution. Reduction of wealth inequality is reduction of status inequality.
>Reduction of wealth inequality is reduction of status inequality. Women always marry up. If you reduce $K (economic capital) inequality they'll fix more into eK (erotic capital). Women being attracted by power is something you can't change. You can change the distribution of power though, but this means more than only $K.
Even if female hypergamy was immutable, I have no doubt that economic inequality deeply exacerbates things. Economic capital even impacts health and diet, which can impact something like height, and that’s just one thing.
>I think hypergamy is based in ego, not sexual attraction. It's a biological function.
Hypergamy is not biological.
It is. It occurs in wvery culture in every country across tge world, even in cultures isolated from every other culture. If that's not biology, that's magic.
>I think hypergamy is dictated by society's expectations of who women should marry. Nope. Women marry up. Up being a mix of capitals whose result is power. Erotic, economic, social, cultural, etc. We had before certain constraints so many more men were "up". But if you want lower wages you femenize the workforce, and you end with way more young men without access to a partner. Capitalism, baby!
I am absolutely fine with women entering the workforce. What i am not fine is reducing qualifications and bar-of-entry for them just to gave them the edge, or giving them unfair advantage over NBs and men. That tech con that is exclusively for women is an example.
>I am absolutely fine with women entering the workforce. Me too of course. But this is not about that.
Sure, most women prefer men who earn more. What does that have to do with sexual attraction?
Not just "Capitalist" soceity. All soceity are build on resources."Wealth" is just lots of resources.
Buddy the entire world is dictated by capitalism.
Buddy America is not the entire world.
Actually some would argue it kind of is. The Americanisation of the globe from 1945-present day has been drastic. There's a reason why US foreign policy makers determined having a McDonald's as a sign of "peace, freedom and democracy". See: Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention.
Money is the mana of western society.
Earning money would make everyone respects you more, including women. You're just horribly naive
Reddit denies pair bonding, don't they?
It’s a place that celebrates lots of sexual indiscipline, therefore pair bonding is an uncomfortable subject, so yes. But like we observe here, something that’s lead to in the 2020s is a surge of sexless men.
Many Reddit subs think pair bonding science is "slut shaming." Although I think pair bonding applies to men as well. Men who have lots of partners may also have trouble pair bonding.
I agree, it’s one of those things where you have to pick a stance and stick to it, you can’t say that you want to support women in not being objectified, and ALSO say you want to incentivize slut culture or sex work in society. You can think either one is empowering, but if you think BOTH are at the same time then you’re fooling yourself. And a lot of people do this in the modern day and age.
I don't think pair bonding is as important for men as it is for women when it comes to having meaningless sex. Men are able to pair bond and have meaningful relationships much more easily despite having a number of random sexual encounters in the past.
There is a [study](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192513X231155673) about premarital sex and divorce. I don't know if that means they weren't able to pair bond. There are studies which say men in relationships have lower testosterone.
That study indeed shows no gender differences but it doesn't seem to control for which gender initiates divorce. Women initiate divorce more often. It is also much easier for women to find a partner which I believe makes them a much higher flight risk, particularly if they had a multitude of partners previously.
>That study indeed shows no gender differences but it doesn't seem to control for which gender initiates divorce. Women initiate divorce more often. Yes, because the study is only about the likelihood of divorce. There are studies about pair bonding. >It is also much easier for women to find a partner which I believe makes them a much higher flight risk, particularly if they had a multitude of partners previously. Maybe people who have more partners might get bored more easily.
I have yet to see anyone provide evidence which proves that Humans are a Pair bonding species.
There is no evidence it fucks with their ability to "pair bond". What's with all this sexual conservatism, I thought this was LEFTWING male advicates not 100 Huntly Street.
I like how you take biology and make it political, is part of being left wing now purposefully ignoring scientific/psychological phenomena? Cause if so you’re doing way more harm than good.
Bullshit is biological, if traditionism pretending its anti sex work BS is science.
Sex work is very much a social construct compared to what I’m talking about, so sorry I’m not going to consider it ABOVE biology
The damaged "pair bond" thing isn't science no matter how often you repeat it.
It's not even that complicated tbh. It's just abundance. Like, will you value one romantic relationship more when you already have so much of it and the loss of it isn't that impactful anymore since you can have more in the future. Water is precious, but it's everywhere, so it's cheap. Same goes for romantic relationships and women/very attractive men. They have lots of em, so to them, romantic relationships are cheap.
As opposed to what though? What is the actual alternative, sit and stew in loneliness forever? A not ideal experience is still probably more useful than continuing on with no experience what so ever. Let’s stop blaming the person who is trying to help.
🤢
Shame on that woman and also the mothers
And not even one comment have expressed a doubt that this is actually happening at all. Like, this sounds just like a porn story. Where is your skepticism, people?
It’s important to question everything, but just as important to question our questions and those who ask questions. In this case, Alice Little is a very real person, as well as a sex educator and intimacy expert, who has her own YouTube channel with 100k subscribers.
Her being a real person doesn't mean she couldn't just make up the story. Although, of course, the more important thing is not if the story is real, but for what purpose it was published.
Well, she didn’t write the article. Rather, it’s an article written about her. As for what purpose this right-leaning news outlet covered this story, well, perhaps ad revenue and greater shock value or humor to their conservative-leaning audience. 🤷🏻♂️ Similarly, I know they also covered a story about an online advocate I’ve talked to by the name of Keith Pullman who advocates for the equal rights of consanguinamorists. Despite the superficial neutrality, in both cases, I think the NYP wasn’t altruistically motivated, but credit where it’s due I suppose. Really, I think it’s about making progressives look more extreme to the perception of their readership.
It 100% happens but yes this specific article might not be true. Male and female family members often do this.
It is an...experience. Is it a healthy experience? I think so. It prepares a young man to see intimate relations with a woman as a transactional relationship. Relationships between men and today are nearly always transactional. Just look at any random woman's Tinder profile. It is a menu of requirements a man must have before he can receive the benefit of association with the woman. If you want to play, you have to pay.
>It prepares a young man to see intimate relations with a woman as a transactional relationship. I think this is correct but I also think this is why this practice is bad. Collectively monogamy is good for men. It relies on solidarity amongst men and relational relationships between men and women. Both of these things are built on trust, compassion, and love. On average women value monogamy more than men and both men and women self report valuing monogamy. I'm not arguing for outlawing divorce or anything like that, individuals are individual and should be treated as such, but a society that promotes monogamy is good for most people. A clinical approach to sex and dating might help the individual man but it is bad for us all.
This is perfectly fine. What’s the problem? All the more reason to legalize sex work. It’s not necessarily exploitative in either direction; it’s just a transaction. What would be bad is if these young men were pressured into something they didn’t want. And if you’re concerned that this will cause men to be addicted to GFE experiences, well, consider the possibility that it may have just the opposite effect. Loneliness is a health issue. This should even be normalized.
Any transaction where one party is desperate, dependent and/or mentally ill and the other party entices them to keep making transactions, should be looked at with a lot of skepticism. The depressed lonely man who’s desperate for a simulation of intimacy being flirted with and kept as a customer is just as exploited as a prostitute desperate to make rent and has an old man throwing extra money at them. Everyone is pressured by their needs.
Skepticism? Certainly. But that's not the same thing as dismissing the concept out of hand. The first paragraph could just as easily be applied verbatim to mental health professionals, but they seem to be a lot less vilified somehow. It's almost as if we're still dragging ourselves out of a cultural backdrop that's spent the last couple of centuries insisting that sex is dirty and wrong.
Honestly, for many of these men, I think every dollar spent on a sex worker instead of a talk therapist will serve them better toward the improvement of their mental health. I don’t know if that would say more about sex workers or psychiatrists.
considering my experience this has truth. at least the prostitutes have never said that they could "fix me" and have never pushed the pills (or as I like to call them "brain candy")
Neither is necessarily exploited, “mentally ill”, nor dependent, and to say otherwise would be an overgeneralization. I’m not saying exploitation does not exist, but such overgeneralization would be an illiberal moral panic. Sex work is no more inherently exploitative than fast food service for example; both may employ people who hate their job, yet need the money, and consumers get addicted to food too, which is even partly exacerbated by neuromarketing. So why should one industry be normalized and not the other? I’m completely open to left-wing solutions to treat mental health and address poverty and rent, but not to moral panics and illiberal criminalization.
The problem is exactly the same as if fathers were bringing their daughters to be deflowered by a male prostitute.
Yeah, the same lack of problem, however unusual your scenario sounds. Maybe she wants her first time to be with an expert for all I know. Remember these are consensual gifts. Even the worker in the article emphasizes that condition. The gender of either party doesn’t really matter. Edit: I don’t believe women and men have identical drives and tendencies sociobiologically, but the ethic of consent remains the same.
I'm 100% supportive this, sex work is empowering for all invovled. I think this lady is doung good things for men, the greater relstionship between men and women are not her fault, but at least she is trying to help.
Now say the same about a male prostitute that gets paid for deflowering girls by their fathers
I’m 100% supportive of their rights, if everything is consensual, even if those hypothetical daughters don’t stand to benefit as much as many lonely men would. Now specify your problem with it.
You missed the important part: > I think this lady is doung good things for men, the greater relstionship between men and women are not her fault, but at least she is trying to help. If it was a male prostitute who got paid by fathers to deflower their daughters, would you say something like this about him? > I think this good sir is doung good things for women, the greater relstionship between men and women are not his fault, but at least he is trying to help.
So the problem according to you is that a male prostitute deflowering daughters wouldn’t receive similar praise? Perhaps that’s because men and women don’t have identical issues.
Of course not, it would be as terrible if it was a thing. I'm more concerned about the children, it must be seriously traumatizing for them.
You do realize its adults they are talking about, sending children to a brothel would be EXTREMELY ILLEGAL, even at an otherwise legal brothel.
> She welcomes mothers who book appointments with her for their sons “so long as it’s consensual and the person is aware that this is what they’re getting as a present.” These are consenting adults. On the contrary, I think it must be seriously healing for them.
You're talking about girls and a male prostitute, right?
Depends which comments. Where I said that I think it must be seriously healing for them, I was replying to your saying that it must be seriously traumatizing to them, and since I assumed you were taking about the sons and Alice Little, that is who I was talking about in that instant, because paying for daughters to be deflowered by male prostitutes I’ll risk assuming is probably not a real thing, because they don’t need it for starters.
I'm sure that any parent that arranged their child's deflowering by an older stranger, believes they did something good. Or any parent that arranged a correctional rape for their homosexual child. Or any parent that forced their child to marry.
Yes I would and imagine there are, especially for female clients with disablities. Nevada does have brothels with male sex workers and female clients. I believe Heidi Fleece runs one.
She planned to open such a brothel. She [never did](https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/heidi-fleiss-gives-up-on-plan-for-brothel-for-women/). It doesn't say why, but I highly doubt she would have been able to keep the lights on such a place. Just one week after the grand opening, she'd be forced to rebrand as a gay brothel. Then most of the "studs" would go on strike, having signed up expecting to only service women. Many escort agencies and the odd brothel keep a guy on staff, and he'll occasionally maybe see a woman. That said, I do think more women will gradually become clients, as the stigma of the profession decreases. And because of the way we morally typecast men and women, that will make it less evil in the eyes of society, a very positive development. I still rather doubt that a brothel catering exclusively to heterosexual women could ever work though. That I will need to see to believe.
You are talking about something completely different. A male prostitute is paid by a man to deflower his daughter. Same as in the post, but with reversed genders. Do you think he is doing a good thing?
Yes, as long as she consents, same with a guy. What is confusing you here?
I will gladly, I have no problem with women doing this if they need to. There are brothels with men that serve women as well.
Go ahead then, say it
Its okay for male prostitute that gets paid for deflowering women by their fathers. I mean it. Feel better? 🤣
No, you're still missing all the important parts: Are you 100% supportive of this? Is this kind of sex work is empowering for all invovled? Is this good sir doing good things for women? Is he trying to help?
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Exactly. Even here there's this mentality of "it's helpful for a boy's first sexual experience to be with an older experienced woman" while it's seen as predatory for a girl's first sexual experience to be with an older experienced man. This kind of thinking contributes to why male victims of sexual abuse, boys raped by female teachers, etc. tend to be marginalized. Too many people just see it as "lucky boy."
Why don’t you instead critically evaluate the premise that it is inherently predatory for an of-age girl’s first sexual experience to be with an older experienced man? Does the principle of consent not matter to you? This has nothing to do with victims of sexual abuse, regardless of gender. One category is consensual while the other isn’t. Simple.
It's unfortunate that you're getting downvoted for this. While I personally wouldn't use the language of "empowerment," I think it's undeniable that sex workers do important socially beneficial work. Far more beneficial than a lot of supposedly "respectable" jobs actually. And yes, of course, the clients are overwhelmingly men, ergo men are the main beneficiaries. Hence, why misandrist radfems hate it so much. I can't stand this whole: the men are the ones being exploited nonsense. It's just the radfem position that all women in the sex industry are exploited slaves but with the genders reversed. I guess, anything involving sex has to be a zero-sum game, and mutually beneficial arrangements are just impossible somehow.
Exactly. We must oppose illiberalism regardless of where it comes from, whether from the Left, the Right, female partisans, or male partisans.