Is it wrong or selfish to fuck a prostitute? Is it inherently

>>2946930

For various reasons I have never hired a hooker, but I do not see anything inherently evil in it as long as woman is not coerced or abused into it and the customer also is not harming anyone (for example his wife).

Degenerate forms of prostitution, including the abuse of women and the involvement of organised crime in it, are a product of its illegal status in many countries. In jurisdictions where prostitution is legal and protected by the state, such things are far less common and most women are self employed.

>>2946930
You dont want sex, you want appreciation and admiration.

There is nothing wrong with fucking a whore. Don't ever let roasties make you feel less for doing so.

I wouldn't ask this here

>>2946957
no, I would like sex. I don't want somebody to be hurt for me to get it. I gotta live with myself after anon

>>2946969
>humanities
>philosophy
it fits

>>2946973
Nah, I mean not on a board full of /pol/ virigins.

>>2946981
Are there virgins here? I thought they are confined to r9k, int and pol.

>>2946983
>int
why int?

>>2946969
Ethics is philosophy which is Humanities.

>>2946986
Ever saw how many "tw when no gf" threads they produce?

>>2946983
pol love shitposting here.

What? If I was born a hot female I wouldn't hesitate one second to become an escort. The best ones can easily make $ 2000 / day.

It's obviously different if you're talking about underage brazilian girls who got sold by their families and now are forced to fuck random men only to get compensated with crack. In that case, it's probably wrong.

File: 1477976915767.jpg (29KB, 380x520px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 380x520px

>>2946930
yes it is wrong. Women want to choose who fuck them and buddy, you are not part of their choice.
Women become very sad when they have to deal with what they see as poor and ugly men. You worsen the lives of those women.
This is why women hate whores, they know they do not get the choice of their mates and they hardly get orgasms, and the man has the upper hand, until he gives the money, then the woman regains the upper hand, but it is too late for her: she knows she is just a slut and she must make effort to get money from bad sex with some fugly beta.

>>2946930
All systems of employment are abusive and what the hell is a 'compromised position'?

>>2947087
Drug addiction, human trafficking, violent consequences if they try to leave. Extreme poverty. I would like my whores to have some options so I know they'd prefer to be doing what they're doing.

>>2947083
Good bait attempt

>>2946983
they're confined to the entire site

Yeah, I think prostitution is ethically wrong. Here's my thinking:

>What makes something ethically wrong?
If harm is done to somebody.

>Even if they don't know it's being done?
Yes. An injustice is an injustice despite ignorance of it.

>Even if they enjoy it?
Yes. People can enjoy being exploited, doesn't make it right.

>Even if they consent to it?
Yes. Coercion exists, and everybody has to find some way to make money.

>Even if they want it enough, they'll do it for free?
Now this is where it gets tricky in my opinion. I view the main harm in prostitution not the possibility of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, because we've all but eliminated those as possibilities. The main problem is that an individual is exchanging their principles for money. Only few people can walk away from a serious self-infringement upon their principles unscathed. And enough money (or enough desperation) can make almost any principle go away.

However, if prostitution is honestly something they would do for free and feel no guilt about it, my opinion is that they should test that theory, fuck anyone that asks for a year, and come back to it. If they honestly feel nothing, then maybe prostitution is not ethically wrong in their case. No psychological harm is being done, so no problem.

The reason why you need to test it before the payments come in, though, is because of cognitive dissonance. After long enough as a prostitute, many prostitutes probably come to think that it's not that bad, but only because they've gotten used to selling out their ideals.

I would put porn in the same category as prostitution. Though I don't visit prostitutes, I do watch porn. I don't come up with a crazy system of loopholes that makes porn okay but prostitution bad, I just accept that I do evil. Just like the killing and enslavement of animals for meat, I don't think it's right, I just accept that I do evil sometimes.

>>2947191
I read this twice and still have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say. Who are you to tell someone what they can or can't enjoy/consent/want to do? Or what is ethically wrong or an injustice?

The sex trade in Pattaya is an interesting example. To most of the civilized Western world, it would seem that such an environment is filled with despair/poverty but it isn't. These girls enjoy going on different dates and seeing how much money they can get spent on them or if they'll take them anywhere cool. It's a game for them. Really no different from girls in the West dating as young adults.

>>2947191
In Amsterdam a brothel has opened with support of the city government where the prostitutes run the whole thing themselves, get tested for stds regularly and clients must use condoms (supplied by the prostitute) or else its a no-go. Do you still think its evil when women (or even men) sell sex when its voluntarily and regulated like this?

File: Iwantbettermoderation.jpg (219KB, 501x1200px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 501x1200px

>>2946981
>/pol/ is terrible, they're stupid, caricature their opponents and reduce the board's quality
>If you disagree with monetized sex you're a /pol/ virgin

>>2947212
ironically enough /pol/fags are the normalfags here given their neo-tradtionalist anti-degeneracy shtick that borders on fucking parody

File: 04b0eb384f724e92a12e40b3d3797c56.jpg (75KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 720x720px

>>2947218
>normalfags
>neo-tradtionalist anti-degeneracy

Take your meds

>>2947218
>shtick that borders on fucking parody

It seems you're taking bait posted here as candid opinion

You're getting trolled and fully falling for it the traditional sense of the word

>>2947224
well, they're more like failed normalfags but normalfags none the less

>>2947224
/pol/ has long passed the "communities whose individuals pretend to be idiots for a laugh will eventually become full of genuine idiots" thing.

>>2947239
>well, they're more like failed normalfags but normalfags none the less

???

Are you a le "I posted here since 1998" /b/tard?

>>2947239
> "communities whose individuals pretend to be idiots for a laugh will eventually become full of genuine idiots" thing

Plenty of people are still making bait and getting (You)s and kicks out of watching you get peeved by them.

It is a FACT that people complaining about /pol/ derail more his threads than /pol/ ever does.

>>2947250
Off-topic picture about the theory of a discredited proto-psychologist

>>2946930
It's amoral. You pay for a service being offered. Unless you can argue someone is being harmed, a service is all it is.

>>2947247
>wants his worldview to be the most relevant in soceity so he could be socially accepted by his peers
>not normalfag behaviour

lmao

>bait

It's not b8 if the person is genuine in his beliefs.

>>2947297
>See, I just changed the definition of the word so it would fit

>>2946986
int is a friend simulator

>>2947297
view not most relevant: not normal

Do you know what a norm is, brainlet?

>>2947305
He only know what an "epic win is", he is an "oldfag"

>>2947218
>neo-traditionalist
>implying this isn't a result of being virgin NEETs

The new in-vogue thing for people who can't get any pussy to do is become traditionalists. Same reason why anti-capitalists exist. They can't compete, they know it, so they switch sides

>>2947191
This assumes the woman shares your principles and attitudes to sex.

>>2946930
Selfishness isn't wrong. It can be abusive but to declare it inherently evil in every case is imposing your flaky morals on others. The "trick" should give a fuck about whatever she wants.

>>2947212
You're strawmanning. First line is true in general though.
My thought was more
>pol virgins are more likely to give a stupid advice based on their hate of women

Considering men pay for sex either way, I don't see what's wrong with it being a completely honest transaction.

That said, I don't think all prostitution is made from the same cloth, so to speak. If a woman chooses herself to be a sex-worker, then I can't see that there's anything wrong with it, however, in many cases prostitution obviously involves women who were forced into it without any say.

Conclusion in my opinion is that prostitution isn't wrong by definition, just potentially wrong depending on the manner in which it is done.

File: 1424022795809.jpg (456KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 1600x1200px

Prostitution objectifies women

>>2947379
Literally nothing wrong with objectification.

>>2947342
>You're strawmanning.
>First line is true in general though.

These are already conflicting statements

>>pol virgins are more likely to give a stupid advice based on their hate of women

You have categorically gave your stupid opinion on what /pol/ would proceed to say

>>2947374
>If a woman chooses herself to be a sex-worker,
women love to be paid to be fucked, but only in dilettante and on their terms, which means it is already like today but this time the exchange of money is explicit

>>2947191
>everybody has to find some way to make money
How come everybody else manages to make money without selling their ass?

Clearly you didn't think this through.

>>2947379
are you saying some women aren't objects?

>>2947374
>Considering men pay for sex either way
t. virgin
Seriously what the fuck dude, this is some serious muh chivalry faggotry. If your conception of a relationship includes the man paying for everything then you are 100% gonna have a shit time if you ever manage to convince a woman to spend time with you. If you treat a woman like a prostitute, expect her to be as trustworthy as one. Any sort of power imbalance fucks things up for both people. Unless you like vapid bitches who view you as a way to make an easy buck if they put up with your shitness in bed.

>>2947305
Look, you strive for a society where your world view would be the most relevant and thus a society where you would be considered normal, but since your views aren't represented in society at large, you're a failed normalfag, but normalfag none the less. I can't make it any clearer than that.

File: 1496158315657.jpg (341KB, 1657x909px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1657x909px

>>2947437
Does this woman look like an *object* to you?

>>2947495
>If your conception of a relationship includes the man paying for everything

It's way more complicated than that. Women associate money with status, which doesn't necessarily mean that she wants the man to pay for every little thing that comes along, but it certainly means that she considers a man who makes a lot of money more attractive than a man who doesn't.

File: 1435291701688.jpg (94KB, 313x290px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 313x290px

>>2947496
>you're a failed normalfag, but normalfag none the less
>you're normal but you're not

>>2947495
>t. virgin
>ad-hominem

Personally I find nothing wrong with it and find it more noble than jacking off to internet porn.

>>2947496
> I can't make it any clearer than that.

Have you tried drinking bleach ?

>>2946930
most women would do it for free. So it's better if they get make money off it.
There's nothing wrong with it

>>2947512
Which is not the same as the man paying for sex. Like at all. And not accurate besides. Yes, women prefer men who dress well, take care of themselves, and aren't stingy. If I can do this as a student on a waiter's salary then I think it's fair to say that a lack of money is no object to sex, unless you're also hideous, which is actually also not the main point, because there is always some equally or more hideous member of the opposite sex out there. The real issue is people who are unwilling to improve themselves deciding that the reason women way above their station in terms of looks won't have sex with them is that all women are prostitutes.
>>2947513
This is 4chan, insults are obligatory. Doesn't invalidate the rest of my statement though.

>>2947513
Still not getting it, huh? Let me illustrate my point with an example, your stereotypical fatass dakimakura-hugging weaboo isn't a normalfag, he pursues his obsessive hobbies and generally doesn't give a fuck about society at large and doesn't try to normalize or rationalize his asocial behaviour to the world. The /polr9k/ faggot, on the other hand, constantly whinges how all women are whores, how society is degenerate and how they would be socially accepted if it wasn't for the jews. That it the reason they go on these rather cringy internet crusades to "redpill" the masses, in a vain attempt to change society to be more accepting of them like the failed normalfags they are.

>>2947546
>Which is not the same as the man paying for sex

It kind of is. If a man has to compete with other men in all social domains and has to win in order to even be noticed by women and get sex, it is a form of payment by definition.

Unless of course you think that women will just give up sex for any reason whatsoever. Sex is as much a weapon as it is pleasure.

>>2947191
>The main problem is that an individual is exchanging their principles for money.

You retarded stupid fuck. You retarded stupid fuck. You retarded stupid fuck.

The basis for our economies is on a vast "web of evil" with the sole purpose of extracting oil.

And here you're grandstanding about fucking "Uhh principles for money uhhh"

Your fucking life is principles for money you dumb fuck.

ITT: Woman: The Eternal Riddle.

>>2947567
Women aren't a riddle at all. They are actually quite straight-forward, as are men.

>>2947565
CONT

And yes, I must emphasis about how much of a retarded stupid fuck you are.

>>2947495

Speaking of retarded stupid fucks, this fucking guy. Women are fucking prostitutes for the top 20% of men.

They literally would rather be "Chad's" 4th women on the side than be a beta's primary mate.

>>2947561
>Sex is as much a weapon as it is pleasure.
"No"
This is exactly the attitude that I'm talking about. If you allow a woman to use sex as a weapon to get what she wants, you are in a shit relationship. Further, I just explained how I as an average-looking guy who puts just a little effort into his appearance can quite easily find sex despite only making waiter's pay.

>>2947573
Guess I'm Chad then :) never change r9k. All it takes to be "alpha" is being assertive but not annoying and not a slob.

>>2947572
Submit your thesis on the subject to my office by 5 PM.

>>2946930
Just don't give a fuck. If the people don't want to be hookers then they shouldn't have become hookers. And don't let other people tell you it is wrong either. A lot of us guys just want sex without any of the romantic entanglements.

>>2947574
>I as an average-looking guy who puts just a little effort into his appearance can quite easily find sex despite only making waiter's pay.

Sure, if you don't have any standards yourself.

But I would argue that if you actually wanted something more than just sex from women, e.g a long-term relationship and children, suddenly your average looks and waiter's pay will become a problem.

>>2947580
Let me explain women for you, without r9k bullshit:
They are people just like men
They like sex
They don't like subservient cucks
They find neckbeard/"beta" behaviour as cringey as everyone else
They like being with assertive people who treat them as equals and don't allow themselves to be treated as less than equal.

>>2947593
Your whole post is /r9k/ bullshit.

>>2947599
literally the opposite attitude of those fuckig incels

>>2947590
I will dispute your point only slightly, but it's not relevant to the discussion of what it takes to acquire sex and kind of constitutes shifting the goalposts. Besides, I am currently in a stable and loving long-term relationship with those average looks and waiter's pay. But I agree that a relationship serious enough to include children requires both members to be financially stable. But that's just a basic requirement of growing up, there is no reason anyone with access to a decent education should be on waiter's pay past the age of 30, and I fully support anyone's decision not to marry someone based on that person not growing up.

>>2947601
A number of views are circulated there, each with heaps of self-delusions.

File: Immanuel-Kant-for-Pianko-5-15.jpg (81KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x480px

>>2946930
>Is it wrong or selfish to fuck a prostitute?
Are you using another as a mean rather than an end? Yes. Yes, you are.

>>2947606
Where are the self-delusions in that post? The tl;dr is literally "don't be cringey and also remember that women are people"

>>2947604
>But that's just a basic requirement of growing up

Sounds like a reductio ad absurdum to me.

Do you really think that men's incessant need to compete and win in society, both socially and economically, doesn't correlate at all with the fact that women actually want the winners?

Because it does.

And I hope I don't need to remind you that 50 years ago, it wasn't a "basic requirement of growing up" that both the woman and the man had to be financially stable to have a family, this is a new neo-liberal phenomenon where wages have stagnated to such a great extent that having children is now reserved for people who are rich.

>>2947593
and then how much work is furnished by men compared to women?

>>2947618
>men's incessant need to compete and win in society, both socially and economically
Wut? I just take care of myself, go for a run a few times a week, work hard at my job and my studies, try to be a generally pleasant person and treat women as equals while not accepting less than equal treatment from anyone without an actual position of authority over me. Seems to work pretty well. If that somehow means I'm "outcompeting" some slobs then sucks to be them I guess. Men are not on display at a slave market where women pick and choose the best. Relationships and casual sex both happen through chance encounters, and all that matters is that you make a good impression during that chance encounter and then follow it up by being decent.

And I hope I don't need to remind you that 50 years ago domestic relationships were horribly imbalanced. Children are definitely not reserved for the rich, just the adult. A low-middle tier job with a long-term contract is not the same as being rich, literally all it takes is hard work and not being an irritating person.

>>2947593
Lmao wtf is "beta behavior" Mr robot?

File: 1491170714975.jpg (110KB, 910x537px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 910x537px

6 0 K
0
K

>>2947640
>If that somehow means I'm "outcompeting" some slobs then sucks to be them I guess

Yeah sucks to be them, but it doesn't change the fact that you're doing it to increase your chances of getting poontang and children in the future.

>>2947646
You know full well what that term means, it's common across all boards on 4chan (I have never visited r9k) and as silly as I find it, it's a handy shorthand for all the things that men who don't have any conception of women do. If I had to be specific I'd say "beta behaviour" as I used it here comprises all activities placing women on pedestals in the hope that they will reward one with sex and similarly any act of obsession over a women who has expressed her lack of interest, as well as any sort of sweeping and deflecting justifications for one's own romantic inability (e.g. all women are whores, women don't appreciate chivalry anymore, women just want a chad not a real nice guy like me, and so on).

File: 17rvzk.jpg (51KB, 960x539px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 960x539px

>>2947198
>who are you to say what is ethically wrong
>OP is asking for opinions on whether prostitution is ethically wrong
Clearly, the answer to all such questions of right and wrong is that ethics do not exist, or if they did then bickering, wavering humans could not decide them. But I should have been more clear that this is merely my opinion.

>>2947314
My opinion assumes MANY things. The most basic assumption is that ethics exist. The second most basic assumption is that the code of ethics is always true. The third assumption is that betraying the code of ethics causes damage, because people feel bad when they do wrong. The fourth is that in this set of ethics, harm to humans is unethical. The fifth is that it is against this ethical code to betray it for something as trivial and worldly as money. The sixth is that sex is sacred, or is at least carefully selected. There are probably even more that I cannot even recognize right now.

For my argument to be sound, I would have to prove all of these things, but even the first assumption cannot be proved. So, I'm trying to at least make it internally consistent with all of the unstated assumptions that I am using. That is all any of us are trying to do with our arguments.

However, my opinion does not mean that I impose my thoughts onto others or judge them if they think or do differently.

>>2947421
One aspect of my argument was to explain that it's wrong to be convinced by money to do something unethical. It's not necessarily wrong to be convinced by money to do anything that ethics do not judge.

>>2947210
Yes, I think it is still unjust, because I don't really believe people can have such a lackadaisical attitude towards being prostitutes. I think that people who end up being prostitutes PROBABLY don't like the idea of it, and only become used to it after doing it enough.

>>2947565
>implying I'm not aware that all wage labor is exploitative and unethical
>implying I'm not a communist already
>mfw

>>2947677
Dude...

>>2947495
Women simply aren't attracted to the majority of men and most have to offer her something in return for intimacy.

This is compounded by womens' greater in-group mentality. In fair psychology experiments where students are given sweets to distribute to everyone but themselves, boys generally go around the class giving 1 sweet per person while girls immediately go to the other girls. Older boys divide the sweets using math while girls manually distribute them to the girls and a few popular boys.

Women continue to socially isolate a proportion of men throughout their lives and one only needs to look at feminism to see this phenomena. Feminism is an ethical ideal but in practice it reflects womens' fears and insecurities, the greatest among these is the "creep". Less than 1% of men will ever commit a sex offense, even these are unlikely to do it at a particular moment and most are manipulative and have good social skills, yet any socially awkward unusual man is branded a "creep". It could be that they had a dysfunctional upbringing and never had the chance to learn, but they're not getting that chance, at least not in any social situation where there are women, his mere existence hurts their feelings. Far-left feminist dogma exists to find excuses to justify this and abuse women's fears, standards that don't apply to women or the most attractive men, naturally.

So what does a person like this do? They are good people, they just never get invited to parties and are constantly told they are not good enough, a loser virgin. A person like this ends up a "nerd". Someone who studies and tries to improve themselves relentlessly, someone who has to learn to break the rules and use initiative to get ahead because female teachers won't do their jobs properly. These people end up quite wealthy as adults, but are still "creeps". "Creeps" it is justified to discriminate against in education, work and divorce courts in favor of women, naturally.

The more you know.

>>2947687
>One aspect of my argument was to explain that it's wrong to be convinced by money to do something unethical.
The unethical one is the person offering prostitution then as they could be doing something else - like everyone else.

>>2947675
That is true, but what I'm trying to point out is that this whole competition for sex shtick that I keep seeing spouted here is not really true at all because the effort required to "outcompete" is actually so minute. You need three things to be romantically successful: a willingness to self-improve, a good attitude towards the whole thing, and a realistic appraisal of the genetic limits of your own looks. That's it. You will eventually find someone if you have those three things. Hell, being physically fit here means I am automatically more eligible than 30% of the population (30% obesity rate, same as US) and maintaining fitness is an utterly trivial act of self-improvement.

File: serveimage.jpg (60KB, 600x645px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x645px

>>2947577
>All it takes to be "alpha" is being assertive but not annoying and not a slob.
This.

Just be yourself.

>>2947704
>sweets
That sounds interesting. Can you find the study/studies or at least give me some key words to search for? You remember the authors by chance? I want to read that. Most of the stuff I'm finding when I look for it are about obesity and such.

>>2947704
Mate, I literally have Aspergers. Yes I was a loser creep through primary school and early high school. And whaddya know, girls prefer guys who have social skills. But luckily I had parents who stomped hard on the attitude that it was anyone's fault but mine, and so I did fucking study, just people not books, and as a result I now have stellar social skills. It's difficult, but all it takes is commitment and honest, non-depressive self-criticism. I have zero sympathy for anyone who has this persecution complex because I am fully aware, from personal experience, of the fact that sympathy for this condition only enables the one receiving sympathy to wallow in it and not drag himself out of it.

>>2947727
>>2947723
Although I am very interested in those studies by the way, and I'd like to echo this anon's request for any keywords.

>>2947710
>but what I'm trying to point out is that this whole competition for sex shtick that I keep seeing spouted here is not really true at all because the effort required to "outcompete" is actually so minute.

Well it's getting more and more narrow as time passes though.

If you accept my claim that women actually want men with higher status, this problem is getting compounded for every year that passes, since women are now gaining more well-paid higher status jobs than they did 50 years ago, and they graduate from college at an increasingly higher rate than men do.

At some point all the educated people from university are going to be women, and it's going to be extremely few and far between well-paid and educated men that are prospects for women to marry and have children with.

So what you're going to get is a horde of overly educated women that can't find a partner because they refuse to marry down, and a whole horde of uneducated men on the public dole.

>>2947727
Not him, but what does your personal blog have to do with anything he wrote?

>>2946930
The sex industry competes on the same market as every other job. The fact that many women choose it over working at Taco Bell shows that it's not the worst thing in the world. If we were really that concerned about the well-being of prostitutes, we would ask what makes sex work such a popular career choice and try to make other careers more attractive, instead of shaming sex workers, imprisoning their customers and agents, and driving up their overhead costs.

>>2946972
>I don't want somebody to be hurt for me to get it.
Pedo detected. Read this and stop hating yourself.

https://www.ipce.info/host/radicase/index.htm

>>2947740
He wrote about being a loser creep as a terminal, uncureable condition that is ostracised by women and can never be recovered from. I pointed out that this was a condition that I had and that while he was right that people don't like creeps, the point is moot because it is entirely possible to become something other than a creep.

>>2947746
>He wrote about being a loser creep as a terminal, uncureable condition that is ostracised by women and can never be recovered from.
And your anecdotal evidence somehow contradicts that 'condition' which neither of you even properly define?

>>2947752
An anecdote does disprove an absolute statement to the contrary mate. If your claim is that x = 1 for all cases and I present one single case where x = 2, I have fully disproven your claim.
Besides, you're splitting hairs. Neither of us properly define it because neither of us would bother defining a desk or a window or any other commonly used term. But just for you: a loser as I (and I'm pretty sure everyone else as well) see it is someone who displays the symptoms most commonly associated with mild autism, those being social inability/awkwardness, a lack of understanding of the emotions of others, a tendency to lack a social group, a tendency to state things bluntly even where doing so is inappropriate, a general lack of (appropriate) body language, a poor sense of fashion in clothing and grooming, a sense of humour that is lacking in finesse or actual humour as others see it, a tendency towards academic pursuits in place of social ones, and myriad other antisocial behaviours.

>>2946930
Assuming it's legalized so you can be certain there's no abuse behind it and it isn't forced then it's perfectly fine as they are willingly providing a service for which you pay for.

>>2947806
>Just let all the prostitutes that are being forced into it starve and be beaten by their pimps for not hitting quotas, that'll fix it!

>>2947792
>An anecdote does disprove an absolute statement to the contrary mate.
No, it does not, because when talking about real world matters - rather than matters of mathematical logic - you should generally assume that the person you're talking with is talking about tendencies rather than absolutes. Doing anything else would be retarded. Here, the anecdote does not disprove the tendency but it confirms it, being the outlier.

And while I'm not the person you were originally talking to, I can give you my point on the matter:

A midget will most likely never become a successful basketball player, someone who scores below 100 on an IQ test will most likely never become a good mathematician and people who don't exhibit traits that women find attractive won't be popular with them. Certainly, there might be some people who are on the edge, they might be able to work on some aspects and thus become popular, but the idea that anyone could do this is ludicrous. This liberal mantra of "you can do anything if you try really hard" denies reality and it doesn't help people. What you can or can't do is largely defined by your biological make-up, and just like there are some people who won't ever become engineers because they lack mathematical talent, there are people who won't ever be popular with women. Blaming people for those shortcomings which are likely inherent to who they are does not help them.

This is literally you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1NfWIaYed8

>>2947736
So... what? They'll all be lesbians? 100% of women cannot marry 20% of men. Standards are relative and according to what's available, not some absolute. Just take a look at Russia, famed for beautiful women and ugly men. Besides, I'd say that if you are right it is the opposite of an issue. Oh no, men will be forced to improve themselves because women have improved themselves so much...? Even if you are 100% right and men will somehow stop graduating entirely, the problem will sort itself out in a generation if the women refuse to marry down. The horde of overly educated women and horde of uneducated men will die of old age eventually and the beautiful people will inherit the Earth. Which you surely realise is a ridiculous scenario.

>>2947852
You are a bit dumb, aren't you?

>>2947881
>They'll all be lesbians?

No, chances are they'll live alone with their cats after their ovaries dry up, and they spend the rest of their lives projecting their resentment at never having children upon men in newspaper articles.

>>2947878
Then again, social skills are skills, just like math or basketball. If you just took a couple of semesters of math in high school and thought it was hard, that doesn't mean that your IQ is below average, or that you can't learn math. If you didn't make the basketball team because of poor coordination and stamina, that doesn't mean you can't practice and get better. Just because you've done poorly is social situations in the past doesn't mean you're crippled and incapable of learning to do better, even if you may not ever be world class.

>>2947555
Wanting to be normal does not make normal; else the individual in question would have fulfilled his objective and nullifying his pursuit

>>2947881
>Oh no, men will be forced to improve themselves because women have improved themselves so much...?

Not that guy, but how exactly did men and women "improve" ?

>>2947878
That clip was hilarious, thank you. I fully acknowledged the fact that we are talking about tendencies in the definition I gave. But I'd like to ask, what are you proposing to help those people like me? Are you going to tell them that it's all the world's fault, and that people should accept them just the way they are (even when no one actually will)? Or are you going to tell them (truthfully), that by enduring the inevitable fuckups that they make and persevering in their study of social conventions they can eventually come to understand them through a painful and lengthy process? There's a difference between physically lacking a tongue and getting tongue-tied. They (we) are not crippled. It does literally just take a fuckton of hard work. If you can understand maths, you can understand social conventions. They're just arbitrary rules that you need to learn (which actually start to make sense the longer you look at them). Applying them is no different to applying any other algorithm.
To go back to that clip, I am not proposing putting a creepy loser next to an Adonis on national television. I'm not even proposing telling the creep that he can become Adonis. I'm just proposing telling him that social skills are literally skills like absolutely any other and all it takes to succeed socially is study and practice, like any other skill. A midget will never be better than a pro or even a tall dude who puts in as much effort as the midget, but he can certainly learn to put the ball through the hoop.

>>2947935
>If you just took a couple of semesters of math in high school and thought it was hard, that doesn't mean that your IQ is below average

That's exactly what it means, highschool math is basic shit designed to be easy to learn for everyone.

>>2947962
In the scenario put forth by the anon I was responding to, he stated that women are getting more and higher paying jobs and graduating from university in ever greater numbers, and that eventually all educated people coming out of universities were going to be women, i.e. women had gotten super educated and pretty wealthy on average, which I'd say is probably an improvement.

>>2947935
You are denial of reality. In order to learn a certain skill, let alone become good at it, you need a certain base ability. Hard work and effort will only get you so far. Do you think dyslexic people aren't trying hard enough? You might consider your ideology humanist, but it's the very opposite, since it leaves out the very relevant component of individual talent innate to every human being. People are not the same, they cannot equally achieve everything. Some people are good at this, some people are good at that and maybe there are some that are good for nothing. That's how nature works. Just like you find polymaths you'll also find people who lack any kind of marketable talent.
And that's why your ideology is anything but humanist, since it puts the blame on people who most likely couldn't help but end up where they are. Most poor people (safe for a few underachievers - that certainly do exist), are poor because they lack the abilities that are in high demand so they can't get a high paying job. Why blame them for something they couldn't help? It's not like they chose to be born that way.

>>2947992
Not him, but surely a win/lose ideology is better than a lose/lose ideology? If your ideology is "up by your own bootstraps," and you are poor, then on the off-chance that you are poor because you were being lazy, then your condition is now fixed. If your ideology is anything else, you will remain poor regardless.
Of course in either case if you are poor because you are literally retarded then you will remain poor, but at least with the philosophy of hard work there exists a scenario in which you alleviate your poverty

>>2947878
I am also not the person you were originally talking to, and I think that your point about tendencies is incredibly well explained. However, I want to point out a possible discrepancy in your argument.

Becoming a professional basketball player or becoming a famed mathematician are both things that are very rare, considering the number of people who attempt sports and math. From this rarity, we assume that attaining either of these professions is incredibly difficult. So too is being "popular" with women, having many to choose from or having many at once -- rare, and so probably difficult.

But what about just ONE woman? Since marriage, or at least dating, is so common that it's almost universal, we assume that it must not be that difficult to attract one or a small number of potential mates over a long period of time. If we mark the beginning of high school as the start of the dating game, it takes the vast majority of people fewer the sixteen years to find a marriageable partner.

So, why is it not acceptable to expect that any given person, even a "beta," can find or become attractive enough to date someone? Where is the error?

Are we to assume that marriage is not actually common? But we have data to prove it.

Then are we to assume that just because it is common, it is not easy? But we also have data to prove the average person has eight to eleven sexual partners in their life time, even more romantic partners. Such data does not prove that finding a partner is "easy," because each person could still invest a huge amount of time and effort into finding each partner. But then, if the average person invests a huge amount of time and effort into finding a partner, we come back to the central question, why is it unacceptable to expect "betas" to do the same?

Finding a partner is either easy, so "betas" should be able to do it if they tried, or it's difficult yet everyone does it, so "betas" do not get a sympathetic exemption from the expected effort.

>>2947968
>But I'd like to ask, what are you proposing to help those people like me?
I'm proposing that people like you, who apparently managed to overcome his issues, will be able to overcome their issues just the same way as you did. Just leave them alone.

>If you can understand maths, you can understand social conventions.
Some people can't understand maths and no amount of practice will ever make them good at it.

>To go back to that clip, I am not proposing putting a creepy loser next to an Adonis on national television. I'm not even proposing telling the creep that he can become Adonis. I'm just proposing telling him that social skills are literally skills like absolutely any other and all it takes to succeed socially is study and practice, like any other skill.
Yes, and just like any other skill it takes a modicum of talent to learn and become proficient. And some people might be lacking that very talent.

>>2948006
>Becoming a professional basketball player or becoming a famed mathematician are both things that are very rare, considering the number of people who attempt sports and math. From this rarity, we assume that attaining either of these professions is incredibly difficult. So too is being "popular" with women, having many to choose from or having many at once -- rare, and so probably difficult.
I have used extreme examples to exemplify the point.

Obviously, you don't need to become a professional basketball player or famed mathematician to be good at basketball or maths and I'm fairly certain most people will be able to attract a partner perfectly fine. But we're not talking about 'most' people here, but people in the lower percentiles of the bell-curve regarding whatever trait we're talking about. And those are for all intents and purposes fucked.

>>2948010
>Just leave them alone.
In this specific instance though, I can tell you from personal experience that it is not helpful to just leave them alone, because our general lack of people who will honestly appraise us (most people have best friends for this purpose) means that we can easily develop an irrational hatred of the outside world to mirror the hatred we perceive. It is extremely necessary to occasionally be told that it really isn't the outside world's fault that we're creepy or unpleasant to be around. To go back to basketball, if you take the necessity to develop skill in basketball as absolute (the biggest difference between social skills and basketball, social skills are nigh absolutely necessary), then you are doing a disservice to the midget if you allow them to stop working towards the ability to put ball in hoop, or blame that inability on their pre-existing condition rather than a voluntary lack of skill development on their part. Because as painfully difficult as it might be, there is no reason someone with the strength to throw a ball be unable to throw that ball through a hoop, unless they also have a degenerative nerve disease or something and there is literally an insurmountable physical barrier to hand-eye co ordination. But the percentage of the population so afflicted is so utterly minute as to be negligible in application of the ideology of telling everyone to just get over themselves and get on with it, and furthermore can generally be recognised by the spasms.

>>2948004
>If your ideology is "up by your own bootstraps," and you are poor, then on the off-chance that you are poor because you were being lazy, then your condition is now fixed. If your ideology is anything else, you will remain poor regardless.
Important is not the ideology, important is what's actually true.

Do you think millions of people are poor because they're not working hard enough? I find that hard to believe. Plenty of poor people are hard working but they simply lack the ability to land a better paying job because they weren't born with the kinds of talents these jobs demand. Naturally, it doesn't come down to talent alone, talent without hard work gets you nowhere, but talent is still the basis of success.

>>2947992
>Most poor people (safe for a few underachievers - that certainly do exist), are poor because they lack the abilities that are in high demand so they can't get a high paying job
That's wrong, though. Most poor people are poor because they're caught in the welfare trap (it's impossible to move up without losing benefits and ending up worse off than before), they have to take care of children or elderly relatives and don't have a schedule that lets them work, they're fed up with all the workplace bullshit and would rather spend less than earn more, etc. The idea that poor people are poor because they're somehow inferior is, frankly, incredibly insulting.

>>2948006
> So, why is it not acceptable to expect that any given person, even a "beta," can find or become attractive enough to date someone? Where is the error?

Yeah they can waste money on a women after she's had a mile of cock run threw her.

Sounds like a great deal

>>2948048
I'm honestly starting to think you are just poor and trying to blame that on some sort of genetic deficiency. Which is ridiculous as well, because even among the poor, there are hard workers and there are slobs, and the hard workers are noticeably better off, even when working in menial labour.
t. worked as a construction labourer for a couple of years. You start off being paid minimum wage, and according to how hard your work your salary increases. The older guys, the real hard workers who stuck around, were being paid 4-5 times as much as the lazy guys who are just there because the boss couldn't find anyone better.

>>2948044
If you managed to do it, I'm certain others in a similar position will do just fine.

>>2948078
I am literally telling you that I only managed to do it because I was not left alone.

>>2948050
No, most people are poor because they lack the kind of ability that is in demand. You must be literally out of your mind if you believe that you can turn people with an IQ below 100 - and that's half of the population - into engineers and doctors.

>>2948074
>I'm honestly starting to think you are just poor and trying to blame that on some sort of genetic deficiency.
Whether I'm poor is irrelevant to the argument. But I believe poverty to be a direct consequence of genetic deficiency.

>Which is ridiculous as well, because even among the poor, there are hard workers and there are slobs, and the hard workers are noticeably better off, even when working in menial labour.
Perhaps so, but it is irrelevant to what I'm talking about here. Certainly, a man who puts a lot of effort into his work might receive better pay than someone who does not - but there's a very hard limit to how much money you're able to earn in construction. A man can only carry so much weight, he can only put in so much effort and work so many hours a day. In the end, he won't be rich - no matter how hard he works. And that's a consequence of the ability required in construction work being present in abundance. It's not highly in demand.

Rather than working in construction, he should have gone into finance.

But do you think the average construction worker could do that? I don't think so. I firmly believe that most of them lack the intellect required for such work. You might find the odd underachiever among them, but most are where they deserve to be. And blaming them for that is pointless, since they couldn't have done any different.

>>2948081
And I'm certain others won't be left alone either or find another way. Talent usually emerges at the top.

>>2947379
Women objectify themselves.

>>2948113
But that's completely irrelevant. Obviously not everyone can be rich. I'm not claiming the average construction worker could go into finance. But it's entirely possible to be less poor provided you just work hard, even purely within the field of manual labour on a construction site. In the same way it's possible to be less of a mouth-breathing autist if you just study social conventions. You'll probably never be the mythical Chad but you may one day not be actively repulsive to women, and that's enough.

>>2948121
What? You've been trying to tell me that it's wrong to tell someone who is socially awkward to get their shit together and stop blaming the world, correct? But you accept that it was only possible for me to succeed by being told to get my shit together, yes? We're talking about people with no talent here, so talent emerging on top is an active hindrance to aiding them. Creepy losers are by definition left alone because they have little no friends, and it's important that those few people close to them strongly encourage them to acquire social skills.

>>2948006
While I think you may be ultimately correct, I should point that your logic is broken.
The average person can get their high school diploma with minimal effort but that doesn't mean the retarded should be expected to get theirs even with sustained effort, nor would it be reasonable to blame laziness and defeatism for their failure.
In the same way, social cripples can live normally and meet normal milestones only if their handicap is light and they can compensate for it with effort. Further, it's unclear whether it's even desirable for someone to meet "normal" expectations, what merit is there in it really? They could spend that effort on becoming extraordinary and celebrated individuals by playing on their strengths instead of vainly cultivating barren soil.

>>2948262
Well honestly I gave up a lot of academic pursuits for social ability. Occasionally I think damn, if only I had stayed autistically focused on literally nothing but maths I could be something great. But then I realise that that greatness would be absolutely nothing but a stroke of the ego. All the things that I physically crave as a genetically social creature would be lacking from my life. Honestly a middle-of-the-road, pleasant life is infinitely better than a brilliant one wracked by depression and loneliness.

>>2948088
>Everyone that's not a doctor or engineer is poor
>Low IQ people tend to be lower earners, therefore all poor people are unintelligent
What?

>>2948174
It's not irrelevant at all.

>But it's entirely possible to be less poor provided you just work hard, even purely within the field of manual labour on a construction site.
Less poor but still poor.

>In the same way it's possible to be less of a mouth-breathing autist if you just study social conventions.
Less of an autist but still an autist.

The point is that your potential is limited by your genetic make-up, and denying that denies reality.

File: Woman in Wheat Field.jpg (495KB, 2500x1575px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 2500x1575px

So has anyone in this thread actually been with a hooker? Let me break it down on how it goes

>be me
>frustrated, autistic virgin
>decide I've had enough of it
>go on backpage, look up local girls
>nervously go through, try to figure whats bait and whose legit
>finally find one that piques my intrest, dial the number and stare at my phone for like 15 minutes
>finally press call, almost spill my spaghetti when she actually answers
>tell her my situation, turbo kissless virgin that wants sum fuck
>says alright, tells me how much her rate is and where and when to meet
>drive over, go to her place, almost instantly spill spaghetti again when she opens door
>not stunning but not ugly either, nice tits too
>pay her and we fuck, walks me through it and was surprisingly patient
>dragged the foreplay out especially, good thing she did because I blew my load in 10 mins
>get dressed, say thanks and kiss her goodbye, go home and cry in the shower, go to bed

Turns out she was a student and part time secretary in the next town over who does the escort thing for some extra cash. She made most of her money off of milfags like me, I know human trafficking and prostitution are a major problem but escorts seem to be in control of their business. Either way I'm glad she did because that was probably the first and last time I'll ever have sex

>>2947083
Damn thats what Arnold looks like now?

>>2948193
>But you accept that it was only possible for me to succeed by being told to get my shit together, yes?
No, I don't accept that, because you don't know whether it was only possible due to that or whether you wouldn't have achieved it anyway.

My point is that most people end up where they deserve to end up and chances are you're not talking to an underachiever but a failure, so attempting to talk sense is fruitless. Not to mention that very often it only serves the purpose of self-portrayal in an attempt to boast rather than a sincere attempt to help someone.

>>2948426
So, was it worth it to loose your shot at wizadry over this?

>>2948368
>Low IQ people tend to be lower earners, therefore all poor people are unintelligent
Clearly you must be low IQ if you already fail at reading properly. I said 'most', not 'all'.

>>2948440
>Never attempt to help anyone with anything because you're cheating the universe/god/whatever out of some sort of weird karmic justice

>>2948442
Yea I'd say so, the bad thing is that now I know what pussy feels like and I kinda, really fucking miss it and want it. Not being a virgin doesn't change the fact that I'm a fuckin' loser and socially retarded

>>2948426
Mine was with a Costa Rican at a massage parlor. She was good, had a nice ass, petite and small body. Massage was decent but she was young and a novice anyway. I'd say it was worth every penny. I'd do it again.

>>2948467
I'm not saying you're not free to try, this has nothing to do with karma at all. But the point is that it's fruitless if you're trying to teach an armless to throw a ball. Also, the second point still applies: more often than not it's about boasting rather than helping.

>>2948468
Just become a regular then. Surely you can flip some burgers for a helping of pussy every now and then.

>>2948473
how to massage parlors work? Do they actually let you fuck them or is it just a blow job? There's one around where I live with a reputation of being one of "those" massage parlors and I've been thinking of going

>>2948503
Nah I've been out of the military for like 7 months now and I'm not going all the way back to Southern California for her.

I'm going to college soon and try it "the right way" but if not I know there are hookers in my city I could always call. That or I could just sort myself out, go to church and find a woman to marry.

>>2948526
Well, I meant a regular at the whorehouse, not a regular of that specific pussy. Sorting yourself out and settling down is likely to be more cost effective and satisfying though, so try that.

>>2948547
To keep this thread "& Humanities" related, would it be ethical to keep my escapade with the escort a secret from the woman I marry? Should I just tell her I'm still a virgin or am I compelled to disclose that to her? Don't know if any of you are religious but what would be the right thing to do from a Christian stand point?

>>2948577
The Christian stand point is that any sex out of wedlock is sinful. But you don't necessarily have to confess that to the woman you may marry later on, you confess that to your pastor, and repent of course.

>>2948511
depends on the parlor. some only do handjobs, others allow bjs and sex.

>>2948589
I was raised by Christian parents and I'm trying to go back to the church but there are some aspects of the faith that confuse me, one of those being repentance. What qualifies it? Is it feeling genuinely sorry for what I did? Because I really am but how do I know that God will forgive me?

>inb4 lel thar is no G*d loser

>>2948006
It depends how bad it is of course. I think a lot of "incel"ism is caused by comfortably it is to just stay at home these days with how developed the internet has become. But keep in mind there's probably some imbalance in the male to female population size. Another thing is that for a lot of people participation in society is simply unnatural, if you are say ugly and people in general dislike you whatever self-sacrifice you perform for people in general will always be very uninspired. You can achieve the popular goals people set, and which you have been influenced so to desire but simply feel nothing or even worse.

>>2947083
>not part of their choice

The problem with this is that they live in a sheltered environment where they don't suffer the consequences for not choosing me.

If they fucked "Chad" in the ancient past, they would be left with a fatherless child whom would most likely die.

Now they get to have Chads children subzidized by the government (aka fugly betas).

>>2946930
>feeling morally conflicted fucking a literal whore
Holy beta male

>>2946930
if you think a prostitute sell her body but a miner does not...

>>2948609
How best to repent is a question for your pastor as well. But being genuinely sorry is generally the most important part and motivates people not to sin again. God forgives because God is merciful. You will know he does if you actually do feel sorry. If actually don't think you did anything wrong then you'll have a hard time to get forgiveness.

Also, lying is bad. So don't tell a woman you're a virgin if you're not. Outright lying is no good foundation for a relationship as significant as marriage anyway. If it comes up, you don't need to go into full detail though. You may let her know you sinned and regret it, and if she's a proper Christian woman, she'll be well aware that to err is human and we all have our faults. The important part is always to strive to be better in the future.

>>2947691

pretty horrible dude in the pic

>>>/pol/

>>2948657
Thanks for the insight, at first I didn't feel bad about it, I had just gotten back from deployment and nothing was making sense for in those first couple of months back but I find myself now wishing I had never done it. If I could take it back I would, despite the kind of showboating nature of my original post, personally I deeply regret doing it. It didn't help my self esteem much either

File: 1497304987005.png (931KB, 800x770px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 800x770px

>>2947577
>>2947717

>trying to prove yourself as a "chad" to people on the history board of a congolese woodcarving forum

wow never seen anything more sad in my life

File: jimmy.jpg (38KB, 731x464px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 731x464px

It's selfish but it's not wrong. Fuck all the hoes you want. Just make sure you wrap your Jimmy John or you might get ants running around your 10 incher. Those fuckers love mayonnaise.

>>2948688
one of those posters was being sarcastic, the other saying that if he's a chad then there must be a low threshold to be one.

>>2948687
I wish you best of luck, anon. If you're just going to college, life is far from over. Enough time to learn from mistakes, find a decent woman, get exclusive access to her pussy in return for her exclusive access to her dick, settle down and be content. I do hope you'll study something useful though and not history :^)

File: disconcerted clown.jpg (32KB, 161x414px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 161x414px

>>2948731
>I do hope you'll study something useful though and not history :^)

Y-Yea Anon, who w-would be st-stupid enough to do that r-right?

>>2948731
>her dick
your dick I meant, dammit

>>2948738
Anon... well, some people can make it work but being socially retarded ain't gonna make it any easier to get gainful employment out of that degree. Though I guess you don't need /adv/ uh I mean /his/ to tell you that

>>2948738
Better study something you enjoy doing than going for something you hate just for the prospect of some money. In other words: Don't become the prostitute of your future employer.

>>2947513
the clubhouse mentality of /pol/ is a normie trait. so yes they are normal in a way and utter failures in others. i

>>2948738

a history degree qualifies you for most admin shit as long as you can market yourself, you should be fine. Just don't expect a job in your field fresh out of university.

>>2948511
If they do full service that means sex.

>>2948420
If autism's a spectrum being less autistic would be being normal

>>2947968
This post explains the right way to see the whole thing, I too wallowed in self pity until I took some effort, and then, by the magic wonders of real life, people began to treat me like a peer.

The only thing you need is just putting a bit of effort to be likeable

>>2946957
They can appreciate my money.

>>2947687

>communist

Okay I can see why you're such a retarded stupid fuck.

>Derp I'm going to make centralized calculation more efficient than independent agent calculation derp derp derp

You don't realize how fucking retarded you are. Let me go back.

>The main problem is that an individual is exchanging their principles for money

Because the lives of most job seekers isn't trading cognitive and executive time for money.

The main problem with prostitution is that women won't legalize it because it downgrades their sexual value in the eyes of men.

Why deal with a fussy bitch when you can skip the dinner and fuck a whore in the mouth?

>muh psychologically complex beings

Humans are worth less than capital in the long run. What do you do with the problem of machines taking over moral calculus at an ever exponential rate?

>>2948976
>The only thing you need is just putting a bit of effort to be likeable
This is nonsensical advice. It's the same as telling people to be themselves. You're only talking from your own limited perspective. Some people may have to do more than just put a bit of effort. And for others no effort in the world may be enough.

>>2947379
women are objects

>>2947496
>newfag tries to talk shit
>ends up stumblng about trying to define what a normalfag is and making a scene of ignominy
Fuck all these pseuds trying to discuss philosophy and sociology. This is the shit I come for.

File: Clown.png (8KB, 180x237px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 180x237px

I work security at a place where I see prostitution being a thing. I'd feel bad for you for doing it because it's utterly disgusting what kind of people they fuck and how much drugs and utter dumb shit they do. Don't ever give away your contact info because these cunts are desperate to get your money for some drugs. They'll threaten you and stalk outside your house until morning.

>>2949215
>limited perspective
You're right, I'm talking about my experience, and how, by abiding to that course of action, I managed to overcome some shyness/betaness.
Looking back actually I think you could just call this phenomenon "growing up" or even "manning up", as the grand majority of people just go through this phase of awkwardness

I think the problem is now the proportion of how many people are factually so impaired to not be able to overturn their condition
Are you talking about the whole beta thing (that would be just excusing them) or some especially rare persons?

Some mad delusional shit about individual potential being pedaled around for a board that worships Nietzsche. There is truth to some of what robots say, even if it comes from people you don't want to be associated with. I think many of you either are similar or used to be similar and feel the need to rage against the board and how their pessimism leads to bitterness and agonizing defeatism. The thing is, trying to disassociate yourself as much as possible doesn't make you more right, even if it makes you feel that way.

>>2949521
It's not so much about this specific case. I generally dislike this liberal ideology that people are infinitely malleable and that their potential is only limited by their own effort. People are much more limited by their own genetic make-up than by their own effort.
For the specific case: while plenty of people struggle with some sort of shyness which they are likely able to overcome at some point, there are well likely some people for which it is more than just that and for whom no amount of effort is going to have any effect - e.g. people who are plain ugly.

File: bx24.gif (626KB, 500x256px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 500x256px

>/his/ is filled of sexually frustrated virgins
It's things like this that genuinely make wonder how many of you guys have jobs..

guys help me get a girlfriend, i want to do the right thing and marry, but yall are saying i should lose my v-card first? im 26 btw

>>2946930
This is more current events so not really /his/ related...
but I think prostitution should be legal as much as I disagree with it morally. If a person wants to sell their body, have every right just as they were consenting to sell them selves for any other labor.
Plus making prostitution legal would probably put some regulations on cleanliness and additional protection for prostitutes against abuse, mainly women, by their pimps or clients. If a client doesn't pay a prostitute or brutally rapes a sex worker then leaves them, the person can bring it to court with evidence and at least have the perpetrator charged for theft at least. It can also hopefully curtail or stop human trafficking , again, if some regulations are put in place.

File: problem sovled..jpg (66KB, 500x414px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x414px

>>2950105
Are you a christian? Just meet a devout Christian girl and tell her you too are saving yourself. Problem solved.
pic related.

>>2948152
that can't be. Objectification is an observer bias. You choose to see a woman topless as an object but not a man. Meanwhile, most women TEND not to see a attractive man shirtless as an object.
Men are more of the problem in this aspect.

>>2946960
Don't many feminists defend strippers and prostitutes? They were the ones who brought up the idea that prostitutes CAN be raped btw. The ones that want to ban prostitution do so only because of the possibility of human trafficking. Any distaste they have for it is just because of "muh objectification" but really stripping does the same thing.

>>2950374
how do you tell the difference between someone being aroused by a topless woman and someone objectifying a topless woman? objectification is just a buzzword which really only makes real sense in the case of a sex slave who is someone's property.

Sex is the the plebeian thing a man can do and normies think that ''the only thing which connects us to beast is sex'' which is super retarded and actually is clue to spot normies. Sex for humans (well men more than women) is the opposite of what animals do.
Your life would actually be better if what you call sex would be what animals do: a bit of fight for men (like they love to do now to feed their spook of merit), but once year and it may or may not lead to pregnancy in a roastie.

Also, normies imagine that sex and orgasms (since it wall they know to do) is the way to stop pessimism, >muh schopenhaeur did not have sex enough, some gateway to the spooks of ''transcendence'', immanence'', or for the smart-ass circlejarking over the stop of any dichotomy by oxymorons, the ''immanence through transcendence'' or ''the transcendence through the immanence''
this is all cute and right if you want stay a normie, but if you want to stop being unhappy, and actually do something relevant once in your life, the first thing to stop doing is sex money, entertainment, lying and caring about what men do to feed their spoook of compassion and their opposite spook of dominance and hierarchy.

>>2950614
But of course liberals being hedonists like anybody on earth, they cannot stand hearing that ''sex is for reproduction only if you want to stop being a plebs'' which reminds them too much of being ruled by christians. women can see and experience sex as sex, meaning physical pleasure,, but sex for men is never ever about sex which makes them oddly enough so pathetic that it could be an exit for them to all this desire of impressing women and ''improving'' daily life with more pleasures (physical and intellectual) and less pains and use this as means to boast.

Stick to fapping if you can, but do not expect to achieve anything (at least on your own) in your life if you keep caring about sex (while claiming that sex is nothing sacred, like the liberals, yet, still like the liberals, spending your day whining about rape and creating rules about sex, believing that is is an activity worthy of discussing so much at diner (with friends before a swinger party) and in their entertainment since they have been reducing the will to the libido to the sexual libido after centuries of having faith in the individual will whose pinnacle is the consent through freedom called by them the self-determination (by studying nature or society or having no boss)) .

>>2950399
I was simply responding to anon's stupid post about women objectifying themselves. I don't see how your post is in anyway in agreement with his.
There is a difference in objectifying verses just seeing someone as sexually attractive. Women generally relate to men in the latter. They still respect them, treat them as a person other than just someone(or something) they want to fuck, or value or acknowledge other aspects of their person such as personalities and interests/skills
Now keep in mind I was using objectification here as a short cut for sexual objectification. I actually believe women can objectify men in other ways besides sexually. It's just sexual objectification tends to be more damaging considering, as you mentioned. context of human trafficking, rape, or a person (in this case mostly women) being brought up with an image of themselves as capable of providing nothing else to the world except sexual gratification.

>>2949926
"Where do you think you are?" is not just an epic reaction image, dude.

>>2950374
>Objectification is an observer bias.
Except people can treat themselves as objects.

>>2950880
Example?
It's how other treat them that will define that objectification.

>>2950893
You're saying a person cannot view their self as an object, which is ridiculous. Flies against the concept of self-ownership as well as self-degradation.

>>2950917
I meant objectification as a abbreviation for "sexual objectification" when we were talking about women. If you include other forms, then fine, you win.

>>2947312
(you)

>>2947593
>They like being with assertive people who treat them as equals and don't allow themselves to be treated as less than equal
Don't treat your woman as an equal. You ether dominate her or you get dominated by her.

>>2949914
But there are also women who are just plain ugly. All you have to do is be competent enough to actually speak to them.

>>2946930
You are paying someone entirely for hedonistic purposes completely divorced from what sex is supposed to be about.
Yes, it's wrong.

>>2951309
Why would ugly people be any more attracted to ugly people than non-ugly people? They don't get to choose whom they are attracted to either either.

>>2951459
>supposed
Spooky.

>>2951459
finally a guy with sense

>>2951991
Why the fuck would a desirable man condescend to being with an undesirable woman? Either people's standards are grounded in reality or those people will remain single eternally. Most will choose to lower their standards. Sure they will be more attracted to others but they know that they can never get those others.

>>2952290
>those people will remain single eternally
That is the only realistic outcome.

Why would ugly people be attracted to different people than non-ugly people? You don't deliberately "choose" what you find attractive, it's completely subconscious.

>>2952437
Are you literally retarded? Are you seriously telling me that you believe that an ugly person will never settle for an ugly person? How can that possibly be your belief? Have you literally ever been in a public place? How have you never seen an ugly couple? It's an easily observable fact that attractiveness tends to be equal in couples (inb4 old rich men with golddiggers).
Yes, ugly people are attracted to attractive people. However, they are well accustomed to being rejected by attractive people, and eventually learn to just stick with people as unattractive as themselves. How is that a difficult concept to grasp?

>>2952290
>Why the fuck would a desirable man condescend to being with an undesirable woman?
Men are factually a lot less picky.

>>2952508
>It's an easily observable fact that attractiveness tends to be equal in couples
Not really. Attractiveness in men is significantly less important as it's mostly societal achievements which makes a man attractive. A successful man attracts beautiful women - and this is by no means limited to "gold diggers". And a successful man also attracts not-so-beautiful women, and while he may not choose to stay with them, he can still give them a good time.

>>2952508
I'm talking about extremes here. The original debate is about whether everyone has a chance to compete for a partner, it is not about the dating habits of ugly people. A hideously ugly person, whatever such a person may look like, will have a hard time attracting a partner, and plenty of people who qualify as such will very likely never find one. This is how nature works. Not everyone will find a partner, not everyone will procreate. The liberal idea that everyone can achieve anything is ridiculous. Not everyone will be able to achieve anything, and the limits of what you can possibly achieve are determined by your genes. To deny this is to deny reality.

File: 1488981706777.jpg (272KB, 1600x1486px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1600x1486px

>>2952573
>Attractiveness in men is significantly less important as it's mostly societal achievements which makes a man attractive.
attractive for a relationship day after day, not for fulfilling sexual desire of women and even being attractive is not enough to please women since the girth of the cock is what women lust for.

>>2952589
I see what you mean now. But you've been arguing against a position that I do not hold. I do not think that literally everyone can be successful in literally any field, that would be retarded and denying of reality. However, it is a statistically accurate statement to say that the vast majority of people find a mate. It is also factually accurate to say that there exist women and men whose standards are so low as to entail nothing more than the most basic standards of social ability.
I argue that the amount of people whose social inability is literally incurable are not a significant enough proportion of those with currently sub-standard social ability to justify the stance that we should just let all creepy losers remain as such indefinitely, when there exist a very large proportion who conceivably could pull themselves up to the social standard required to live a fulfilling life, provided they were made aware that it is possible to do so.

It benefits everyone that as few people are socially incompetent as possible, and honestly I don't care about the real unsalvageables because they will always view the outside world as the enemy, whether you think I'm being mean to them or not - this is the only good definition of socially unsalvageable. And without someone telling them that the outside world doesn't irrationally hate them, that it actually really is unpleasant to be around them because of failings that they have, I guarantee you that people who would otherwise be salvageable will become unsalvageable.

>>2947379
>prostitution objectifies objects

wow really makes you think

>>2952616
>the vast majority of people find a mate
I'd be very interested in these statistics. Albeit I by no means question that 'most' people do end up with a partner I wouldn't be surprised if a sizeable fraction of people don't . The whole idea that things somehow work out that 'the vast majority' ends up with a partner seems rather questionable since the real world normally does not distribute things like that.

>I argue that the amount of people whose social inability is literally incurable are not a significant enough proportion of those with currently sub-standard social ability to justify the stance that we should just let all creepy losers remain as such indefinitely
And you base this on what? Your anecdotal experience?

I maintain the position that your ideology itself is harmful to society because it chases dreams rather than deal with reality. The liberal idea that you could overcome any kind of limitation through effort is the bane of modern society. People are not equal. They don't have equal potential. No amount of women's quotas, affirmative action, or trying to motivate people by telling them to man-up or something is going to change that.

>>2952786
Fucking hell man, I'm sick of arguing with you actually. You seem determined that what I'm saying is diametrically opposed to reality and keep stating things that I agree with as if they somehow disprove my points. You also seem convinced that I am a leftist for some unknown reason, associating me with things like quotas and affirmative action which I specifically said are retarded earlier in the thread.
Let me put it this way: how in the fuck is a society that decries hard work as pointless in every case going to do better than one that considers hard work to be useful in all cases? What the fuck is wrong with you that you somehow think that is the case? And since fucking when is it the liberal position that hard work can overcome every obstacle? The liberal position is that the obstacles are evil for existing and that hard work shouldn't be necessary you fucking dimwit. Quotas are literally the opposite of telling people to man up, they tell people that manning up and overcoming their position is unecessary because they are mystically entitled to special treatment for being retarded.

I repeat, how in the fuck is hard work the bane of modern society? I would argue that an unwillingness to work hard is the issue, and your twisted view that hard work is somehow liberal nonsense is actually insane.

>>2952830
I'm not saying that hard work is pointless, I'm saying that the belief that hard work is going to allow you to overcome your genetic disposition is pointless, since that directly results in affirmative action, women's quotas, etc.

>>2952907
>since that directly results in affirmative action, women's quotas, etc.
But that's just plain wrong though. Quotas basically take the logic of "all work is equal" which is obviously stupid and not what I'm saying at all. I'm not even saying people can always overcome genetic predispositions. I'm just saying that they can alleviate the effects of those genetic predispositions, and in some cases mitigate them entirely, albeit through a disproportionate amount of work compared to someone without those predispositions. Surely this is not a point that you can rationally dispute? I mean it goes back to the hard working manual labourer being paid 4 times as much as the slacker. Neither is or ever will be earning finance-sector pay but one is certainly better off than the other.

>>2953030
>But that's just plain wrong though.
No, that's not how the argument goes. Quotas are based on the liberal idea that essentially people are all good and equal and if they are only taught well and show effort, then they can achieve whatever they want.

Now people who believe this see that some types of people are overly present in certain demographic groups. They see women becoming less often CEOs, fewer black people making it into college, etc. - and why is that? If all people are equal it must be that the system itself is biased against these people and thus the quota serves to equalise the playing field.

>I'm just saying that they can alleviate the effects of those genetic predispositions, and in some cases mitigate them entirely
I'm not in disagreement here. Of course people can work on their weaknesses, but only within certain constraints. And these constraints need to be minded. It seems like a humanist position to not rule out the ability of someone to overcome ones weaknesses or achieve a certain goal, but one should consider that confronting people with expectations they can't meet - or even worse: blaming them for their own lack of effort if they fail is plain cruel, as they never had a chance to succeed in the first place.

Are poor people poor because they lack marketable talents that are in demand in our modern societies or are they poor because they're lazy? Are some people unpopular with the opposite gender because they don't embody traits that are valued by them or are they unpopular because they're lazy people who don't work to 'better' themselves? Which is the more humanist position? I say that mine is, since mine does not assume the worst.

I don't mean to be inhibiting, if someone believes he can overcome his abilities, or if - with good evidence - someone else believes he could, it is not wrong to support him, but for others it's better to leave them alone.

>>2953112
So your position is literally that people should be told they have no responsibility to improve themselves because doing so might hurt their feelings? If you mean that things should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, I need to remind you that society does not and can not give a fuck about the unique individual. The same formula must be applied in all cases because social rules don't work if they are left up to individual interpretation: they specifically exist to cover the gaps in what a normal person can extrapolate as logical for themselves.

When did I claim to be a humanist by the way? I want to produce a society in which myself and my offspring are best capable of success. I am well aware that Aspergers runs in the male line of my family, but I also know from personal experience and the personal experience of almost all of my male family members (the group that I'm concerned about) that it is possible to overcome (at least in my family) provided a strong emphasis on the fact that it's generally no one's fault but yours if people don't like you. I want the position of society to be the one most likely to advantage my offspring. As I stated earlier, I don't give a fuck if I offend a person who is literally retarded because to be so retarded as to be incapable of self-improvement they would also have to be so retarded that they can't understand the insult.

>>2953170
>So your position is literally that people should be told they have no responsibility to improve themselves
Given your own deficiency and your family history of genetic inadequacy, it's unsurprising that you don't like to hear this, but society should be run based on reason and what the real world is like not based on ideology. Even if there's the odd number of people who are capable of performing despite a certain deficiency, it's unreasonable to hold everyone to the same standard.

What are you going to do with the millions of people with a below-average IQ once machines take over their jobs? And it's not just them, even doctors and lawyers will be affected by the changes. If you lack a mathematical intellect, you'll have a hard time finding a job in the future. What is society going to do with these people? Blame them for their own inherent inadequacy? Blame them for something they did not choose or which they can't change? Such a society is going to implode at some point.

And your egalitarian 'self-improvement' ideology is the basis for all of that. There are things which you cannot learn, there are things you need to embody.

>>2953267
You are literally ignoring everything I say which agrees with you and essentially going "nuh uh you're wrong" with big words. I have explicitly stated that I am non humanist and non egalitarian. I don't even have a bloody ideology I just use the term for convenience sake. My ideology if you can call it that is to shape the world in the way that best suits firstly my family and line, secondly my cultural group, and thirdly humanity as a whole. What will I do with the millions of below IQ people? Allow them to die out as a sector of society as they will be unable to compete at a level that allows them to maintain positive birthrates as a group. There is no intrinsic value to human life, there is only the value that human life may have to me or my offspring or those that share my traits. I don't expect anyone in my line to be poor, my family excels in academic fields by nature, so I have no reason to want support for intellectual non-competitors. And humanity as a whole will probably be better off if it selects for only those individuals that are actually productive, wouldn't you agree?
What would you do with those millions? Subsidise their existence?

You are the one being pointlessly egalitarian here. If a person's hard work will never make them more appealing to society, that is a solid indicator of the fact that they will never be useful to society. Ergo, society has no obligation to give a fuck about those that can never be beneficial to it, and should disregard their concerns in favour of those that may be beneficial to it. Reasonable, yes?

I'm saying society ought to take measures that will benefit those that may recover, even if it is to the detriment of those that can not, because those that can not will also not, on average, be more or less useful either way, while those that may will be useful if they recover.

I don't care whether or not it's fair to hold everyone to the same standard; and to do otherwise would be affirmative action.

>>2954048
>I have explicitly stated that I am non humanist and non egalitarian.
What you believe you are is not important.

>I don't even have a bloody ideology I just use the term for convenience sake.
Everyone does, even though he may be unaware of it - like you for example.

>Allow them to die out as a sector of society as they will be unable to compete at a level that allows them to maintain positive birthrates as a group.
Do you honestly believe that half of the population is going to silently die out? People are more resilient than that.

>There is no intrinsic value to human life
There is no intrinsic value to anything.

>there is only the value that human life may have to me or my offspring or those that share my traits. I don't expect anyone in my line to be poor, my family excels in academic fields by nature, so I have no reason to want support for intellectual non-competitors.
You have an interest in the stability of society, because if it breaks down the intellectual non-competitors are going to take what is yours by force.

>What would you do with those millions? Subsidise their existence?
Yes, that's what I would do. In fact, we already do this. Depending on where you live there might be more or less welfare, but in most of the western world we factually subsidise those who can't compete. And they are an ever growing demographic.

>society has no obligation to give a fuck about those that can never be beneficial to it, and should disregard their concerns in favour of those that may be beneficial to it. Reasonable, yes?
Society has no obligation but society has an interest, because these people are not going to disappear simply because they don't have a job or can't afford food or rent.

>I don't care whether or not it's fair to hold everyone to the same standard; and to do otherwise would be affirmative action.
No, not at all. Affirmative action means that you believe that everyone has the same potential, which simply is not true.

>>2947495
Hello roastie.

>>2954168
>believe that everyone has the same potential, which simply is not true.
I've been telling you that I don't fucking believe this the whole fucking time. And now you've engaged in an utterly tangential discussion in which you make a (very fair, to be fair) case for socialism. But the whole point of me even engaging with that was to explain that my views are utterly un egalitarian. What about the belief that people should be held responsible for their inadequacies and that the standard of society should remain the same for all comers is egalitarian? It's strictly meritocratic.

>>2954965
I'm a dude.
Hello robot.

File: Stirner.jpg (21KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x400px

>All those spooks

>>2947668
If I was a billionaire I would do this to random people.

File: 1487144965051.jpg (309KB, 804x3007px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 804x3007px

20 Reasons Tall Guys Are The Best
1. Around a hot tall guy, you get to wear heels with reckless abandon without worrying that you will tower over him!

2. They are born knowing how to pick you up and throw you on a bed :p

3. When you are near a hot tall guy, you feel safe, like nothing can happening to you because other people are intimidated by tall people.

4. You feel safe when they hug you, and your height matches theirs in such a way that your ear hits their heart and you can hear it beat.

5. When they hug you from behind they can rest their chin on your head and grab you, causing you to melt a little bit inside.

6. You can turn their sweaters and shirts into dresses. Just throw on some pumps and hit the club, gurl!

7. Hot guys who are tall and big can reach stuff off the top shelf for you, and when they do you can stare at them and watch as their muscles flex.

8. All tall hot guys are sexy when sitting down because they are so tall that they have to slouch, meaning their legs are spread open kind of and just yessss.

9. Tall guys look great in clothes because clothes are made with tall people in mind. Plus it’s really cute when they roll their pants up to show some of their socks, a look that only tall people can pull off effectively!

10. They have healthy genes.

11. You will never have to wear kitten heels/ be conscious about your shoe choice/worry about looking taller than your man.

12. People who love tall guys know that the act of looking at a tall dude is an act of seduction because you have to look up at him and just omg.

13. If you’re shorter than your man friend, you “fit” together with them in awesome ways.

14. Sometimes a hot guy is so tall that holding his hand is awkward so you hold his bicep instead, which is just as good!

15. Because when your hot tall man friend takes you to concerts, he can see everything but will use his domineering height to comb through the crowd to make sure you get to see, too.

16. When you go to stuff with him it will be easier for your friends to spot you in the crowd.

17. You will always be seen as cute and cuddly to a tall dude.

18. They have long legs…

19. When it’s raining outside a tall guy will pull out his umbrella and you will remain perfectly dry!

20. When you share a bed with a hot tall guy at night it’s easier to get into his little nook. TC mark

>>2955319
>What about the belief that people should be held responsible for their inadequacies and that the standard of society should remain the same for all comers is egalitarian?
I'm merely pointing out that if you don't believe that people have the same potential and ability then measuring them by the same standard is irrational. Are you also opposed to weight classes in boxing and special schools for the disabled?

Certainly, for society to function one cannot tailor things to fit specifically for everyone, but where it is plain apparent that an individual cannot perform adequately, one should be reasonable enough to let him off the hook rather than waste everyone's time.

>>2948426
That woman in a wheat field

So naughty.

>>2948468
and the worst part is i'm assuming you used a condom as well, if not i'd be worried.

Not using a condom with sex is such a great feeling. Better than condom any day of the week. Try a BJ too. Try get a gf anon, they may be annoying as shit but pussy is too good.

>>2947259
Nah

>>2947499
>Woman

File: download.png (4KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 225x225px

>>2946957
Your right :'(

>>2946930
How is this /his/ related, fuck off

>>2946983
Lol I'm not a virgin anymore

>>2956553
Starts a thread with an ethical discussion.
Over time thread derails to stories of sleeping with prostitues.
This sort of derailing happens on everybody with every subject, get over yourself my dude.
Ethics = philosophy = humanities.

>>2947083
This reads like a 9th grader wrote it. If anything I'd think that sex workers would feel more free

>>2947191
>The main problem is that an individual is exchanging their principles for money. Only few people can walk away from a serious self-infringement upon their principles unscathed. And enough money (or enough desperation) can make almost any principle go away.

This implies that they're principals arw similar to yours. They morally might not see anything wrong with it

>>2947668
Holy shit

>>2947191
Replying to this hours old post to call you a stupid fucking retard.

>>2947250
>Freud was a retard
Whoa

File: 1495628758510.png (63KB, 687x716px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 687x716px

>>2948738
Lol I am IDC anymore

>>2948761
No I think you meant her dick ;)

>>2946930
I personally wouldn't be comfortable doing it, but it isn't inherently immoral. There are probably many girls who are prostitutes who do it because they're in a situation which makes calling it consensual dubious, and in that case it is wrong, but that isn't a priori true of all prostitutes.

In the USSR, for example, people were generally guaranteed the basics for life but many girls chose to sleep with foreign businessmen for foreign currency. This wasn't a product of what might be called coercion, but simply a calculated decision to exchange sex for something they wanted, in a way both parties benefited from.

>>2947191
>Yes. People can enjoy being exploited, doesn't make it right.
>Yes. Coercion exists, and everybody has to find some way to make money.
So they both enjoy and consent to doing something, but you in your infinite wisdom claim to know what's better for them than they do. This seems completely arbitrary, and based of nothing more than your personal distaste for it. How is something meaningfully exploitative or coercive if it is enjoyed and done voluntarily? Only half of those conditions apply to my job, and I don't think my work is inherently immoral.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with prostitution, we've just romanticized sex to the point where it's seen as immoral to trade it for money.
The only possible downside to prostitution is the transmission of STDs, but proper regulation and safety rulings can head that off no problem.
It's true a lot of pimps and handlers are abusive, and many prostitutes probably put themselves in dangerous and/or volatile situations on a regular basis, but that's the fault of the individual; it's not an intrinsic element of prostitution it's self.

35 year old male here.

In my lifetime i have probably fucked hundreds of hookers.

I started around 17 and have continued on and off ever since. There have been periods where i was able to quit using then for a while, but id go through stressful periods and relapse.

Prostitution doesn't impact my life in a positive way. I come out of the experience with less money and less self worth. Unfortunately i will probably end up using prostitutes more and more as my salary goes up, and my ability to attract youthful girls that im attracted to goes down.

Ideally, i would stop use and work on improving my physical and mental status to the point that i would be attractive to the opposite sex, but that really seems to involve too much effort and discipline, and i usually take the easy way out and just pay for short term pleasure.

Its a bit of a shame really. I feel like i had the potential to attract girls but i kind of let it slip due to laziness, shyness and excess sensitivity to rejection. Now im 35 with really nothing to show for it. No family, no kids, and an extensive record of prostitute use that i can barely remember.

I think its also important to rmbr that few girls want to be prostitutes, most are forced into it through violence or indirectly through poverty. There are a few who choose this line of work and enjoy it but they are the minority.

>>2956694
Tell me about the work you do...

Fucking a pretty girl who gets wet and actually likes you >>>> paying some roastie for emotionless sex

>>2956858
Accounting.

>>2957107
Kinky

I think prostitutes are OK for satisfying fetishes. I've had quite a few girlfriends before, but they're all my age and slim. I have a fetish for middle aged chubby Asian women (I'm Asian too) and I'm too socially conscious to actually date one so I sometimes seduce massage parlor women and usually don't use a condom. They usually love it and sometimes I get it for free. I feel bad about it sometimes so I try to avoid doing it until I get tired of having sex with younger women. It feels like older women really appreciate sex more.

But prostitution that involves exploitation is morally wrong. Prostitution should be legalized so it can be properly regulated.

>>2957252
I should goto one of these massage parlors. What's it like there? Is it easy to get a handjob or have sex. Is that something commonplace?

>>2957252
Are you literally a Murakami character?

>>2957009
The biggest problem is getting a pretty girl, anyone can fuck a fatty or an ugly girl.

>>2957257
Handjob is pretty much expected, not sure about sex. There was this Vietnamese woman who deep throated and stuck it in her raw without me even asking for it, and there have been women who flat out refuse to do anything and wanted to watch me masturbate.

>>2957270
I love Bill Evans and am prone to periods of voluntary solitude, so I guess so.

>>2957288
Sounds amazing. How do you know which massage parlor to go-to? Do you have to be fit or will they jerk off anyone? Im averagely fit, do you think I could get something like that?