I will assume that the readers of this post are men. I will try to guess at the basic nature of your relationship with the opposite sex. You either have a girlfriend or a wife. Your relationship with her is monogamous and committed. Intimacy with this person largely consists of her deciding what she wants to give you. She decides when, if and how sex will take place.

You are perfectly satisfied by whatever she decides to give you of her own body. To a large extent, you are like a little dog who laps up whatever sex treats your female master decides to throw to you. You have never seriously given any thought to another way of situating yourself towards the opposite sex, because you are totally satisfied physically with the way things go with your current lover. On the whole, your relationship with her would be rubber-stamped by any feminist in an academic institution. Because of your satisfaction, and your lack of making any choices in the matter regarding sex, you have lost your ability to verbalize your likes and dislikes in sex. You no longer think about your preferences, and so you do not exercise choice.

There is a very simple way to get out of this paradigm completely, and that is to prefer the company of prostitutes over that of monogamous girlfriends. Your choices are much wider in terms of potential partners. The choice of ages is much wider. Your desire for unusual sex can be catered to. Your desire for sex with more than one person is now perfectly viable. Additionally, you avoid the responsibilities associated with maintaining a monogamous relationship.

What causes most of you to reject this lifestyle are personal ethical and moral problems that you have with prostitution. I am not here to pretend such problems do not exist. The problems are very real. And so it is here that we can recognize that there is a positive correlation between the amount of choice that a john has against the desperation of the woman who is selling herself. In many cases drug addiction is a motivating factor for the woman. In other cases the woman is escaping social and economic hardship in her home country. In any case, a correlation exists between increasing choice for the johns concomitant with situations which are disempowering for the women.

We are faced with a moral dilemma that I think is due for a more thorough discussion. Increasing the choices and preferences for men's sexuality is predicated on disempowering women. This fact should be noted in any attempts to describe the nature of men's sexuality as it actually manifests, not as culture defines it romantically.

I fully support prostitution. It keeps money in my community instead of going offshore. Just make sure you are using an AMERICAN whore with a patriot pimp. Those guys carry heavy weaponry (also made in the US), and they give lots of business to the tobacco and liquor industries, which are also national pasttimes. Yep, I'd say whoring, guns, and hard drinking pretty much sum up what this country is all about. BUY AMERICAN!!!

I reject prostitution because I have no money. I want sex without the economic burden.

"I reject prostitution because I have no money."

HA!

So: 'cause yer poor the rich must suffer?

HA!

Not at all, I consider 'free' sex to be a blessing. The rich can have at it too!

But those poor whores!

Many, having no skills (except the hand- and blow-job; the 'round the world'; the reverse cowgirl, etc.), would be left shivering in the cold on some street corner if they couldn't ply their wares!

Oh, wait...

Increasing the choices and preferences for men's sexuality is predicated on disempowering women. Noone is addressing this reality. But thanks for all your short, 4chan-inspired replies.

"Increasing the choices and preferences for men's sexuality is predicated on disempowering women."

Having excused myself from all that nonsense sometime ago: I don't care.

If a woman wants control over the pussy, the body, or the life: exercise it.

If the man doesn’t care for her self-deliberation: do something about it.

And: vice versa

Let the best individual win.

...and...

If the man prefers the paid company of the prostitute: fine by me.

If the woman prefers to rent herself to multiples as opposed to bonding with one: fine by me.

All in all: I do not care.

#

"But thanks for all your short, 4chan-inspired replies."

Speaking only for me: I tend to keep my responses in line with what and who I'm responding to.

In short: this thread, and you, got exactly what both warranted...

Of course: if any one reading this thread takes any of it seriously, then, please, indulge yourself.

There is no reason at all to believe that the reality of men's sexuality looks like something that is ethical, moral, or designed to fit snugly into the boundaries of romantic love.

Within the narrow confines of one's contemporary local culture, one is fooled into believing that one has immediate access to the paragon of all civility. When the biology does not match up with this mental ideal, one resorts to labeling sex with words normally associated with disease. So it is an "unwelcome urge", requiring a "cure" in order to "alleviate" it.

Normally, what would take place in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM is that people discuss such ethical issues as objective problems expanding and filling out rational discussion. So simply sarcastically berating the person who raises the problem by appealing to local contemporary culture defeats the very purpose for which the forum was made. One of the reasons we engage in philosophy is to investigate behind all the cultural wrappings. Not just repeat them at each other continually, like a yelling match.

If the universe is set up in such a way that men's sexuality is catered to simultaneously with the disempowering of women, we should be mature enough and we should be honest enough to admit that the world may actually be this way.

Instead of being mature enough to admit this, you instead go chasing after the "crux" of why the problem exists in the first place, in a sort of blind delusional groping for a "solution" to an ethical problem which may in fact have no solution, ultimately. You want the world to be fair, to be equitable, to have a kharma built into it that appeals to our sense of fair play. Our biological male bodies may not actually possess any of these properties and the ethical problems may be illusions of culture.

Sex for the sake of sex alone has no utilitarian purpose, therefore it should be... banned. And, If such policy is implemented, and if sex deprivation really did cause insanity and emotional disorder, hence giving to negative economic impact, then... such susceptible subjects can subscribe to sex-replacement-therapy in form of sex-android and sex-doll (available as commercial product). But, beyond that... sex provide no utilitarian benefit (except in term of reproduction), and therefore, should be... banned.

"Sex for the sake of sex alone has no utilitarian purpose, therefore it should be... banned."

HA!

I'd like to see that happen and...fail.

When it comes to sex, talking about it is of no use: it has to be done!

Therefore... go forth and multiply... or something vaguely similar...even dissimilar...

"When it comes to sex, talking about it is of no use: it has to be done!"

Yep.

Folks like Kuntzova need to get a grip (on their privates, I'm guessin'), disentangle themselves from all this sex-politics, and get a life.

"the dignity of every woman and man on earth is inalienable!"

Based on what?

That is: what is the basis for (1) 'rights' or dignity, and (2) what makes those 'rights' or dignity inalienable?

what is the basis for personal likes or dislikes among 6.5 billion people?

good reason? kant wasn't the first nor the only one knowing a categorical imperative.

"what is the basis for personal likes or dislikes among 6.5 billion people?"

I suppose you'd have to poll each and every one of the 6.5 billion to get an accurate accounting of the basis of the personal likes and dislikes of each.


Now: back to my question(s)...'what is the basis for (1) 'rights' or dignity, and (2) what makes those 'rights' or dignity inalienable?'

Do you have an answer, ANY answer, or, will you dance hard and fast as your master has taught you?

i have an answer: mature enough be be consistent and also compatible with your much-treasured "freedom".

and yes, i can dance.

if the student hasn't learnt, the teacher hasn't taught.

did you suggest anything apart from trampling on others' feet when dancing yourself?

*sigh*

Before opening the question(s) up to the general membership in a separate thread, I ask you, wilted flower, one more time...


What is the basis for (1) 'rights' or dignity, and (2) what makes those 'rights' or dignity inalienable?


Saying, "i have an answer: mature enough be be consistent and also compatible with your much-treasured "freedom", is not an answer, though, saying 'that' is totally in keeping with the lessons taught by the snake oil salesman.

And, for the record: 'freedom', 'liberty', etc., all fictions...worthless...useless.

Now: as my Grandpop used to say, "shit, or get off the pot"; that is: answer the question(s) or shut the fuck up...

do you know what REASON is?

One can REASON out a basis for 'rights' and dignity...such reasonings and reasons are predicated solely, of course, on the idea that those who favor such reasons can defend themselves against those who do not favor such reasons.

Reasoning out a basis for 'rights' and dignity is, of course, merely a rationale game, that is: saying 'this' and 'that' are so, not because 'this' or 'that' have any basis in reality, but because 'this' and 'that' provide an practical foundation for cooperation.

That is: We agree we have codified rights so as to not war all the damned time, 'I won't kill you; you won't kill me, 'cause that's 'murder' and 'murder' is 'wrong', so, now we can go and do something else.'

Fundamentally, however, it comes down who has the 'might' to make his or her or their reasons stand.

That is: as in all things 'might makes/is right' is the foundation for 'rights' and dignity.

Okay: question one is out of the way...on to the second: 'what makes those 'rights' or dignity inalienable?'

Care to hazard an answer, flower, oh flower?

consensus of a consistently high standard: voluntary, yes!

Consensus (no matter how well-defended) is not synonymous with 'inalienable'.

For 'rights' to be 'inalienable', for dignity to be 'inalienable', means these 'things' must be indisputable.

If I kill you: how inalienable is your 'right to life'?

If I ass-fuck you in rape: how inalienable is your dignity?

No, your 'right to life', your dignity, is only as sound as your capacity to claim them and defend them...if you cannot claim them, defend them, then you do not have them...not as endowed by a creator or as a 'natural' function of being human.

Again: your 'rights', your dignity, are only as sound as your capacity to claim them and defend them.

And: if someone else claims and defends them for you, then, you are gifted with 'privilege'.

He who gives you 'right', can take 'right' away.


To sum up, then: 'rights', dignity, are only arrived at when one claims them and defends them...there are no endowed 'rights' or dignity, nor does simply being 'human' grant 'rights' and dignity (as in 'natural law').

And since one must claim and defend a 'right', a dignity: in no way can 'rights' or dignity be considered 'inalienable', since 'rights' and dignity are disputed and demolished left and right all the time.

So: unless someone wants to dredge up a hoary thunderer as divine source of human right and human dignity (and offer up evidence of such a being's existence), I stand ready to defend my position and dismantle yours...

the brilliant sparks from cut diamond words like "right" and "justice" were brutally yanked out of the perceptive capabilities of an entire race.

enough trauma to heal.
healing by those who truly know what IS right, independent of what their lost minds and aggravated willpowers suggest to their shortlived advantages!

"justice"

Another fiction with no basis in reality...a sometimes useful tool: defined wholly by the one (or many) looking to dispense it.

the "sense" for justice (con-science) evolves out of an experienced trauma in its absence.

good morning, mr. state attorney!


nature (including human!) once was a self-governing, self-regulatory, infinitely dynamic orderly state of affairs.
its "market"(-ed) copies are not. can anyone learn from that? i could.
that's inalienable, now come and act out your killer instinct.

The human individual IS "a self-governing, self-regulatory, infinitely dynamic orderly state of affairs".

This FACT doesn't change the FACT that 'rights', dignity, 'justice', etc. are crafted, fictional, sometimes useful (as tool) and wholly malleable.

There's nothing 'inalienable' (indisputable) about any of them.

On the other hand it IS evident and indisputable (inalienable) that the human individual is -- again -- ""a self-governing, self-regulatory, infinitely dynamic orderly state of affairs"...this is the idiosyncrat...the organic, on-going, autonomous, agent I crow about here and elsewhere...there is nothing of the 'good' or 'evil' about this agent, nothing of the 'right' or the 'wrong'.

The reality is 'cooperate', 'compete', or 'kill'.

Any 'ideals' (insane constructs; little gods) derived from those practical realities take one from sanity into insanity, fantasy, and fiction-worship.

'...there is nothing of the 'good' or 'evil' about this agent, nothing of the 'right' or the 'wrong'.'

What there IS about him or her is sanity (seeing the world as it is, and acting accordingly) or insanity (seeing the world as it is not, and acting accordingly).

yeah, malleable: homo faber.
good luck to all who cannot avoid such a fate.

"good luck to all who cannot avoid such a fate."

The world is what it is...we -- you and me and him and her and 'them' -- we each are what we are...to pine (or work) for utopia is to be insane.

Again: this is War World...get used to it and live, or, rail against it and die (or, at least, live in frustration).

this agent's polarities leave no space for fine-tuning, obviously.
this is war world: imagine no one goes there to shop anymore.

best of luck, your dedicated retro fashion designer

Dance, dance, and dance: you learned your lessons well...

I'd rather dance than cry





Do you dance, Henry? You should dance.

i'd dance with you, Poordunce!

but i do hope Kuznetzova comes back and is not banned or put off otherwise!

how to end an ethical dilemma starts with seeing where it began.

We cannot always seek the meaning of a thing in its origin.

"Do you dance, Henry? You should dance."

All the time: what I don't do is 'dance' away from defending my assertions.

"the dignity of every woman and man on earth is inalienable!" is an assertion by the wilted flower that she has failed to support, defend, or even explain.

#

"We cannot always seek the meaning of a thing in its origin."

Indeed: and I make no appeals to origins...I say 'Look at the world! See it 'as is'! Find me the inalienable right! Find me the inalienable dignity!'

These do not exist except as fictions in the heads of those who dream them up; as little 'gods' that some serve and would have you and me serve.

'Rights', 'dignity', psycho-genetics, etc.: fictions, models, notions, that can serve as (perhaps) useful tools or be elevated to 'ideal' (little god).

#

"how to end an ethical dilemma starts with seeing where it began"

Of course it doesn't. It begins with assessing where you are NOW, not with pointless meanderings around, and pointless mewling about, what WAS.

#

"I'd rather dance than cry"

And I'd rather 'live'...living is the ongoing, organic, event wherein dancing and crying (and laughing and fucking and hating and loving and killing and sharing and on and on) are normal and natural, sometimes happening all at the same time.