Bar Wenches

File: 250px-DAH2box.jpg (29KB, 250x318px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 250x318px

>>52145675
"Little of both"

>>52145675
>or

>>52145675
I prefer she-goats tbqh.

>>52145675
>trope
saged, reported, called the cops

Always the essential classic, only magical realm if the players don't enjoy it.

Always a nice thing to see, only magical realm if they're used inappropriately.

File: 1413759321290.png (67KB, 332x300px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 332x300px

I'M ANGRY
ANGRY ABOUT SLUTS

>>52145675
How are they a trope? I think you mean a cliche. Maybe a motif.

File: The Monarch.jpg (13KB, 359x269px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 359x269px

>>52145675

>magical realm

Who in the world is going to be mad about sexy bar wenches? Since when do sexy bar wenches constitute a disgusting fetish? Where does this asshole come from? Who is this motherfucker and how do I ban him from all my games forever?

Number 21, find this man for me and kill him!

>>52145675
Depends on the bar.....

Good for business if the bar feels like it

>>52146818

"All fetishes are gross and disgusting... except MY fetish! My fetish is normal, because I am normal. Anyone NOT like me is a freak!"

Not everyone's a straight dude you fucking halfwit.

>>52146841
tumblr detected

Are you a homosapien?

>>52146841
Women usually like boobs too.

>>52146841
ROASTIES AREN'T WELCOME HERE

>>52146841
This post cannot be legitimate. Please nobody reply further.

File: Monarch-screen.png (301KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 768x432px

>>52146841

There he is, on the 4chans! Get him, Number 21!

File: 1427488707469.jpg (1MB, 827x1196px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 827x1196px

Girl's gotta eat. If showing a bit of skin helps, then skin will be shown.

>>52146933
Exactly, it's like prostitution it would be odder if it was not in the setting. Although drawing too much attention to it or taking it too far is possible.

>>52146841
>"All fetishes are gross and disgusting... except MY fetish! My fetish is normal, because I am normal. Anyone NOT like me is a freak!"
There are people out there with fetishes so boring that they can truly believe something like this.

>>52145675
Essential fantasy trope that is, essentially, a magical realm.

File: 1250709142638.jpg (27KB, 473x274px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 473x274px

>>52146818
Right away, Mighty Monarch.

>>52145675
My Fighter married a bar maid once.
Doing so completely derailed and then re-railed his character development. He's the Feywild version of Darth Vader now.

>>52147024
Story time.

File: 1474713233415.jpg (378KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 600x800px

>>52146841
>Assuming gender AND disregarding lesbians or nonbinaries who like tits
kek

>>52146991
This. Woman's oldest profession selling sex for money (prostitute. Men's oldest profession is selling physical force for money (mercenary).

It would be odd not to have them.

File: mike_pence_official_portrait_111th_congress.jpg (158KB, 496x592px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 496x592px

>>52146841
Not yet.

>>52145675
Yes

To be specific, like many things it depends on the implementation and the group

>>52147084
>Sexy bar wench who shows skin for the lesbian adventurer
I am okay with this

I think sexy bar tenders are ubiquitous to the bar/tavern experience. So i man the bar i manage with bar wenches/wenchers.

So i guess, essential reality trope?

>>52146841
Not everything needs to be taken to the extreme anon, he was just kinda flabbergasted that people like you exist.

'not liking tits' is not 'i hate all tits' you don't need to violently against the stuff you don't enjoy (and using shittly made strawmen to make a point is kinda bad anon).

>>52147161
Underrated.

File: 1428972332187.jpg (134KB, 688x963px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 688x963px

>>52147175
They're ADVENTURERS, man. Their career choice is "Make reckless decisions on whim for personal satisfaction." When they come rolling into town your options for the night change from "Finish off the last keg with the old owner after hours and sleep alone" to
>Noble paladin who may take a liking to you and be a devoted husband
>Bard who has max ranks in "perform" and looks for nothing except a good time
>Fighter who has more money than sense and hasn't felt a touch that wasn't trying to wound him or mend those wounds in months

Statistically, adventurers are much more commonly hot, DTF, and have plenty of money and goodwill to throw around. Almost like they're main characters or something.

>>52146841
So non straight people are mad about sexy bar wenches? Wonder why, doesnt effect their gayness any...

>>52147065
Okay, well, let me start off by saying that this was one of the first few campaigns I ever played in that wasn't filled with assholes, which means my tabletop experience up to this point was pretty spotty. I've gotten much better after the two campaigns I'm about to talk about, just through sheer experience.

It was a 5e game run on a named forum, not in person. Play-by-post. The basic plot hook was sort of mediocre, and since I didn't take the game too seriously, I created a Noble Fighter who was sort of a prince from a nomad tribe, based off of a mixture between a stereotypical Fire Emblem lord and a stereotypical "All I need is swords, booze, and tits" macho Fighter. I had intended to play him for laughs as a naive, womanizing knucklehead who didn't really exploit his intelligence or wisdom that much.

Part of the reason he didn't use his head that much is because he was secretly a huge ball of personal issues underneath his cheery exterior, a fact I intended to run with once the game eventually (I predicted) fell into forced drama territory. I thought I had this game figured out, and could ride the plot rails to the end no problem. What a fool I was.

He goes through the generic first stages of trying to flirt with everything in a skirt and being a bravado-charged showoff, we get our plot hook basically rammed down our throat by the DM, along with complimentary DMPC. My Fighter and the party Monk strike up a quick bromance after the monk unintentionally decapitates an enemy with a crit and we trade wisecracks- he's the straight man and I'm the wise guy. Then the party warlock reveals her tragic backstory, how her family was taken away by her evil patron and she needs to get them back. (Remember this, it'll be important later.) \

After we manage to defeat the first boss and return to the starting town victorious, my character looks for the woman with the highest CHA in town. This is the part where the wheels start to come off.

File: tumblr_nm39x9Jb4Z1tonn9ho1_540.jpg (174KB, 540x764px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 540x764px

>>52147161
Are you ready for the storm?

File: latest.jpg (12KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x300px

>>52147414
Are you ready for the strum???

>>52147449
Nobody was ready for the Strom.

>>52147296
>he was just kinda flabbergasted that people like you exist.

No, I was posting as the Monarch, an insane supervillain who casually murders people that annoy him, and that guy there is trolling you by taking my silly shit seriously.

>>52145675

Isn't 'wench' just an archaic word for a strumpet, alias prostitute? Probably because working girls turned tricks on the side a lot back in the olden days...

I'm asking because I'm a non-english speaker.

>>52147604

No, it just means young girl, but it fell out of use and survived for a while afterwards specifically for serving girls. Basically it's an archaic word for "waitress."

>>52147377
So it turns out the best qualifier is a barmaid, and the captain of the guard's daughter. Out of character, I knew that this was a bad idea, but I knew it was also what he would do, damn the consequences. And the consequences ended up being twins. Yes, on their first night together, he impregnated her with twins. So, when the barmaid's father speaks to my Fighter the night afterwards, I'm expecting him to shotgun marriage-equivalent my ass.

Except not only is he cool with it, he's ecstatic and basically begs my character to marry his daughter. That should have been the first warning sign. So, being the lovable knucklehead he is, the Fighter figures that a hot barmaid wife is better than having to flirt with every city's women, and agrees. We get another plot hook including my character's evil uncle, and Fighter and Fighter's Waifu go back to the Fighter's tribe for a McGuffin.

But when we come back, the captain of the guard has been found poisoned in his sleep (it was done about the same time we left, actually), and nobody can figure out whodunnit. In character, the Fighter's still in a honeymoon mental state, so his waifu can do no wrong and he gets a bit testy and mopey when the Monk insinuates she might have been involved in the death. Out of character, I'm pretty much gritting my teeth and preparing for the inevitable, having figured the Fighter put his dick in crazy.

So we go to Obligatory Foreign City Where My Evil Uncle is, and the waifu turns her crazy up to eleven, acquiring a Deck of Illusions somehow and popping out of nowhere to 'protect' my character from 'sand whores'. She's able to intimidate anyone in the party due to her crazy Charisma, and despite the fact that I have no fucking clue who this woman really is, she's at least a Bard 1/Fighter 1. At this point, I'm thinking she's a villain in disguise.

>>52145709
Good taste anon.

>>52147604
It's an older word for "girl," essentially.

One thing a lot of people don't know, "man/men" used to be gender-neutral. So you had wife-men, who were women, farm-men, who were farmers, spear-men who were soldiers, axe-men who were a different kind of soldier, woods-men who were woodsmen, etc. Some of this survives over into modern times, but wife-men got shortened into w'men, or women.

This is also true for he/him. In ancient cookbooks, there is a rather disturbing recipe for cooking a goose so that it is still alive when you eat it. But because the goose is still alive, they still refer to it as a "person," and so call it him/he, even though female geese were normally those eaten at feasts. "She" as a gender-specific pronoun is old, but it coexisted for a long time with the semi-neutral "he" in English.

>>52146868
This

Everybody loves boobs.

>>52147599
Sounds about right, but i like to play along. I'm bored at work. Trolling trolls but being trolled.

>>52145675
Bar winches.
You know, to pull patrons in.

>>52147711
We complete the first part of our mission, but it costs us two people due to bad planning (a fact I had predicted both in and out of character, but the party warlock insisted on going ahead with it and would have done it even if I wasn't present).

This is the part where I become the DM, because the previous DM is losing steam. I ask him who the hell this woman is, and he basically tells me he didn't have a backstory for her, but that she had the Deck of Illusions and a Ring of Invisibility(?!). Great, now I have to make up everything from now on. So now I have to write out both characters in a satisfactory fashion. So I change her backstory so that she's actually an assassin from a mob the DM's new character was from, but that she actually fell in love with the Fighter because they're basically crazy for each other.

So the Fighter goes with the party, and I have a special trap planned- a suit of magical armor designed to entrap the closest person to it that can wear heavy armor. That falls to between the cleric and the (now DMPC) Fighter. It turns out that the Fighter ends up being the target and thus can't help the party for the rest of the mission, a fact that works out perfectly for keeping him out of the way and re-balancing the encounters. So they defeat the Fighter's uncle, but the Fighter is nowhere to be found.

While the party waits on an NPC's help to find the Fighter, the Warlock pulls some underhanded stuff behind the party's back, as I gave her an offer to trade the evil uncle's McGuffin for one of her family members. Now, the McGuffin requires blood to activate, and when the Warlock makes her way into the secret belly of the evil uncle's lair, she finds a half-dead dude covered in blood to the point of being unrecognizable in the dark. The patron tells the Warlock this dude is going to be the sacrifice, and she doesn't question it.

>>52147959
So the ritual is performed, it turns out that the patron should really not have performed it, and somehow the sacrifice survives getting all of his blood drained twice. I even rolled the death saves in secret, and on the second draining he rolled a twenty when he was one failure from death. It seems the dice really wanted my old character to stick around.

The armor had entrapped him and brought him to his uncle's lair, where the ritual was performed once and he just barely lived through it. But on the downside, he was trapped in the Feywild at the mercy of the lord of the Hells that the ritual had summoned. So I figured a devilish deal was just the thing to close the book on his character while leaving his new master as a possible plot hook for the party to stumble across in the future.

He became the equivalent of a Paladin of Conquest in secret, hiding his new allegiance from the party when they came to check up on him. He was going to start a war with a nation that he had convinced himself deserved it, in an effort to protect his new family, consolidate his power, and ensure prosperity for his own people at the same time.

But the original party didn't get to him- another party did. Same setting, different campaign. I'll take a short break, but will expand upon the details of his death if you want.

>>52147755
>but wife-men got shortened into w'men, or women.

yeah I'm gonna need sauce on this dispite the double dubs

There's a disappointing lack of bar wench art in this thread

>>52148133
Please do. I'm quite interested.

>>52145675
Why don't Dennys' have bar wenches?

>>52148262
Not him, but I do know if you google "woman entomology", at the bottom of the definition thing box is
>Old English wīfmon, -man (see wife, man), a formation peculiar to English, the ancient word being wife.

I also know the male equivalent to wo- is were-, the only word that still uses that in the modern day is werewolf, meaning literally (male)man-wolf, which implies a female "werewolf" should be called a wowolf or wifwolf

File: 1461324656213.png (96KB, 578x770px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 578x770px

They're not essential, but they're certainly welcome.

>>52148262
It's absolutely true. It comes from the anglo saxon Wīfman. Wīf means female, mann means human. The man part came to mean male-person, wīf became wife, and the f in wīfman dropped. Basic anglo saxon palo.

>>52147315
If she's into nature the druid is probably pretty hot as well. Dude must have some damn good chest hair i bet.

>>52148133
>>52148445
Alright, so for context I need to explain what the new party composition looked like.
>LG Mountain Dwarf Vengeance Paladin
>'TN' High Elf Illusionist Wizard
>LN Wood Elf Hunter Ranger

So the party had been hired by the paranoid and a bit loopy king of the nation defending against the new Paladin of Conquest, because the war wasn't going so well for the defenders. The reason being that besides the fact that the nation had legal slavery for its mining, the nation was going down the gutter due to the king going partially nutbars and the fact that the nobility had slowly become corrupt as all hell. So a revolution started in the backstory of a PC from the previous campaign showed up here, and the Paladin of Conquest had backed it- the terms were that when the revolution succeeded, the Conqueror's men would get lion's pick of the spoils.

They were surprised to find out that he (the leader of the conquerors) was actually a nice person, even though he was justifying increasingly vicious behavior and treated his deal with the devil as 'I did what I had to do'. Most of the royal children, realizing their father was crazy, had joined with the grassroots revolt in the hopes that they would end up not dead and restoring their homeland before their father ended up driving it into the ground. The negotiations for peace got spoiled by a recurring assassin who had attacked the king and the party before.

Ultimately, the group sided with the king for two reasons- one, the king paid more, and two, the paladin's Vengeance was sworn against devils and demons. The most memorable interaction in the whole campaign, I think, was when the Paladin attempted to persuade the Conqueror to stop- by appealing to his conscience. No threats, no promises, just "I know the heart of a good man beats in that armor. You can do this without dealing with devils."

File: 1338665086943.jpg (174KB, 600x840px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 600x840px

>>52145709
This.

>>52147161
I cast fruits to vegetables.

>>52148857
Now, the Paladin of Conquest really wasn't expecting that, and it didn't help that one of his flaws was that he had always wanted to be a paladin of the god of light, like the dwarf was, but deep down he never attempted to join because he didn't think he had the moral fiber to do it. He almost broke down right there, realizing how far he had fallen, but in his mind it was too late and he could try to redeem himself after winning the war.

He never got the chance.

When the negotiations failed, the Conqueror began his final assault on the capital city soon after. The wizard summoned a wall of fire to block the gates from assault, but due to his magical defenses and special boons granted specifically for this battle, the Conqueror smashed open the gate himself and was immediately swarmed by defending knights, including the party's paladin. Angry to see that the paladin had still chosen to side with his enemies, he ended up taking down several NPCs and buying his men enough time to make a safe entrance before collapsing in his armor from all of the damage. The party was a bit sad that the boss fight had ended so anticlimactically- until I brought out the second stage of the battle.

The devil wasn't satisfied with his champion simply killing a bunch of nameless goons, and assumed direct control of the Conquerer for a short period, boosting his strength significantly and even killing the defending king, an 11th-level paladin, himself. At first glance, the party had lost. The ranger fled with part of the treasury, and the wizard had decided to abandon the defenders for his own personal quest, which was about to become incredibly relevant. The devil considered the paladin, who had survived all of the fight so far, a worthy opponent and was about to let him live, until his senses made his host aware of something horrible.

The wizard had made a deal with a dark goddess in exchange for magical secrets, and the buy-in was killing the Conqueror's (pregnant) wife.

File: 1264088208654.jpg (174KB, 673x666px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 673x666px

Not liking sexy bar wenches?

What are you, GAY?

>>52147109
Sex and violence really are at the core of humanity

>>52149148
The Conqueror may have been immune to fire damage, but his wife was not. She was currently being immolated by the wizard, who had been slowly slipping into Chaotic Evil territory through the campaign, but was really good at hiding it publicly. After killing the wife, the wizard was given a portal to one of the Hells.

In a split second of weakness, the Conqueror abandoned everything to try and move as fast as he could- if he couldn't prevent her death, he hoped to at least kill the person responsible. However, he didn't Disengage, and the Paladin was in range for his last Smite slot. One fateful roll later, and I concluded that the paladin had done about five more than he needed to confirm the kill.

With his final act, the Vengeance Paladin hammered the possessed man in the back. The Conqueror exploded into a rage-filled burst of light, and his troops, who had left the commander to fight his own battles due to their honor system, immediately turned on the paladin and filled him with arrows. The Vengeance Paladin, having fulfilled his oath and banished a devil in the process, died laughing. He became a famed martyr of his order, and his weapon is now a setting artifact.

Now, the Wizard ended up getting double-crossed, and wound up in the same Hell as the Conqueror wound up in. The Paladin of Conquest was informed that his wife would be joining him in the Hell belonging to his master, and that his twin daughters would be spared- on the condition that they would know nothing of their heritage, be raised in another country by parents who were barren, and would eventually be trained as paladins of the same order as the dwarf.

He was now required to serve the devil until the end of time, becoming a torturer and lieutenant. His fall to darkness became complete with his torture of the Wizard, which ceased to be out of justice and simply out of rage towards all that he had lost, and pure hatred.

File: 1478580817720.jpg (18KB, 292x257px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 292x257px

>>52147161

>>52149470
Now, he is a chain devil in the service of the Hells, and after fifty years of faithful service, has risen to become a lord of the portions of the Feywild that belonged to the patron of the warlock but were conquered by the devil.

He has never forgotten his losses, and though he and his wife have had a single son in the mean time, he blames the wizard, his uncle, and the warlock for destroying his life. His pride demands he find his daughters and turn them to his service, no matter the cost.

He hates high elves, eladrin, and denizens of the Feywild, and has passed this hatred onto his son. There is a single cage in one of his dungeons dedicated specifically to torturing the Wizard, whose soul he was able to acquire as a reward for his accomplishments. Every day, he specifically dedicates fifteen minutes to an hour to subjecting the wizard to excruciating pain.

His new goal is to acquire the warlock's family and use them as bargaining chips to force her to face him and what he believes she did to him.

All of this, because he fell in love with one bar maid and things spiraled horribly out of control.
Lesson learned: Don't bang the bar maid. Just don't.

>>52146841
Not everything is a fetish.

File: ohio fetish.png (2MB, 2036x3604px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2036x3604px

>>52149688
Anything could be though

>>52145675
The answer is 'yes'

Also the reason bar wenches have a reputation is because historically barmaids often DID do side work as prostitutes

>>52149753
that was less strange than i was hoping for.

I mean the end result, but like. normal fetish building right there.

File: 1489376601459.jpg (288KB, 760x1051px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 760x1051px

>>52145675

Regardless of magical realm potential, I feel they're essential to set the scene in an inn.

File: images (1).jpg (17KB, 341x431px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 341x431px

>>52145976
>not wanting the sweet embrace of fournival

>>52145675
>Bar Wenches
>magic realm
Have you really never been at a non-feminazi bar?

>>52146841
kys senpai

>>52147353
Women abhor competition and faggots may as well be ugly women.

>>52150170
bait/10

File: hooters-girls-beer-and-wings.jpg (104KB, 900x840px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 900x840px

>>52145675
Just plain old reality.

>>52149625
Neat story. Thanks for sharing.

>>52145993
I really don't understand the backlash to this word.

That's the term for it.

>>52145675
Do you assume that drinks just serve themselves to adventurers?
Because that honestly sounds like the kind of thing that would only happen in a realm that's openly magical.

>>52146841
Wow so a good looking watress that may also be a hooker for hire depending on the society is suddently a fetish and totally not a common occurence in the real world.

>>52148478
>woman entomology
I knew it! women are insects!

>>52149470
Damn. That's hella rough. I guess the moral here is don't bang Barmaids?

>>52145675
How much of a virgin do you have to be to think barmaids are magical realm?
Never go yo Hooters dude, you may get arrested.

>>52150473
>>52150826
Yup.

>>52146841

get the rope

>>52145675
Who would serve the party beer without them?

>>52149980
>not wanting to plunder reynard's coinpurse

>>52148954
Stellar post that made me kek, and I'm not even American.

File: 78.jpg (64KB, 247x248px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 247x248px

>>52147161

>>52149625
I liked your story and I like you anon. Just thought I'd let you know.

File: OnlyWhatYouTakeWithYou.png (278KB, 631x484px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 631x484px

This pic has so many uses.

It makes sense for a service industry (tavern) to have attractive employees, since a cute wench can bring you more costumers.
How sexual/fanservicey she is is up to you or the tavern surroundings (slums/rich residential distrct), though.

>>52146841
i appreciate the existence of attractive women is slightly intimidating to a two-ton sphere whose gravitational field attracts hams from miles around, but most normal people can function in society without freaking out at the sight of someone who cares about their appearance

>>52149753
That was... surprisingly pure. At least, compared to the average saw-shit-happen, fetish-acquired tale.

>>52151537
See this guy, this guy is weird. Mostly because i'm having trouble figuring out how it came to be, or if it's a spontaneous thing.

But that anon is a strange duck for sure.

>>52147109
Pretty sure gathering and scavenging were predate prostitution and mercenary work.

>>52150501
Some people discovered it with TVTropes.

File: Unknown Armies.png (215KB, 600x1849px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 600x1849px

>>52150501
Not the guy you're replying to, but I feel the same about the word "meme".

Before 2000s, the word "meme" was all about grand ideas. "The Carthage must fall", "Deus Vult", "The King is dead, long live the King" etc. - all of those are memes - set expressions that represent grand, overwhelming, dangerous ideas and infect people with them.
And after 2000s, the word "meme" is all about funny pictures and internet tribes' in-jokes.
I'm not even a humanities-fag, but this shit still iffs me to no end.

So, yeah, I can understand when that guy is triggered by the usage of the word "trope".

Have a funny picture.

Tavern wants customers and attractive employees help to achieve that because people think with their sex organs. Its not fucking rocket science /tg/, not everything has to be freaked out about.

File: 1409976612659.jpg (248KB, 857x1000px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 857x1000px

>>52151795
So?

I don't even think tvtropes is all that bad. A tad autistic in concept, but it can occasionally be interesting.

Just stay the hell away from its community pages because that straight is straight-up high-concentration autism, but I don't think it's the kind of thing that singlehandedly discredits otherwise useful terms and concepts like tropes. And it's natural terms like trope are going to come up on a board where quite a lot of people, for lack of a better way to put it, make up stories. Part of being a better writer is learning to analyze tools like this objectively, even if a site like tvtropes is amateurish about it.

Have a tavern wench.

>>52151872
The problem is the misuse of the word, though, just like in case of >>52151827.
When miscommunication is present in your discussion, and people call things "tropes", when referring to a conceptually different thing, it's clear that something's gone wrong along the way.

>>52151827

>Before 2000s, the word "meme" was all about grand ideas
>set expressions that represent grand, overwhelming, dangerous ideas

Wrong. "Memes" refer to contagious units of transmission analogous to genes. Melodies and fashions were cited by Dawkins.

>>52151895
And yet, it is impossible for a meme to exist without something to transmit. A meme cannot exist in an informational vaccuum, or rather, it can, but it becomes completely meaningless and devoid of use.

>>52151907
>A meme cannot exist in an informational vaccuum, or rather, it can, but it becomes completely meaningless and devoid of use.
No, it literally cannot, since a meme is a unit of cultural information much like a gene is a unit of biological information.

Memes cannot exist without cultural information because memes are a unit of cultural information. It's like saying math can exist without logical operators, it just becomes meaningless. No, it just becomes nonexistent.

>>52146841

"Busty women" is not a fetish you massive fucking faggot, neither is "being straight"

And yes, being straight and liking fair-skinned women with big tits is NORMAL because "Normal" means "Conforming to the norm" and if being straight and liking women with big tits isn't the norm then I don't know what the fuck you could possibly define as a "norm"

>>52151923
>No, it just becomes nonexistent.
Actually, it's more like saying that language can exist without meaning behind the words. The words technically exist, but they are gibberish, that represents nothing, entirely nonfunctional.
Nonfunctional != nonexistent.

>>52151892
So in what cases is the term trope commonly misused?

Because I've always heard it to mean - in this context anyway, there are other, unrelated definitions we're clearly not referring to - literary or rhetorical devices used in a work for whatever purpose. Like technically, a protagonist is a (very broad) trope, it's a device commonly used in fictional works.

>>52151945
It ceases to be a language. I could use a random tone generator to produce specific sounds, but that doesn't make it a language simply because they're sounds. If they're not used to produce meaning in a specific and agreed-upon way, then they're not a language just because they're words.

afsdaf sfsad skdfadskfas dfafakfasfka

the above is not a language at all. It's not a "nonfunctioning language," it's a non-language series of characters. A language is a system of communication, since the above is neither a system nor useful in communication, it's not "nonfunctional," it's not a language.

>>52151945

>Actually, it's more like saying that language can exist without meaning behind the words. The words technically exist, but they are gibberish, that represents nothing, entirely nonfunctional.

Then it's not a language

If a series of sounds cannot be used to communicate meaning then they are, by definition, not a fucking language.

>>52151962
>>52151985

Consider a set of two Chinese rooms "communicating" with each other. They are following pre-set rules, creating responses to each other, obeying arbitrary rules, but no actual communication is happening, because they don't have the required context.

For an outside observer, however, said conversation between two Chinese rooms might have a meaning, because he projects his own context onto the conversation, even though communication in said conversation is nonexistent.

If you want an easier example, imagine two chatbots chatting with each other. No communication is happening, but for an outside observer it seems like they are actually having a meaningful conversation.

That's what I mean by non-functional language. The context that is required for communication is not present in the Chinese rooms, it is only present for the outside observer.

>>52151962
>then they're not a language just because they're words.
Technically they're not even words, either. A word is a specific sound or series of sounds that has an agreed-upon meaning. Gibberish aren't words.

Though, really, a language doesn't necessarily HAVE to use words, it could use pictures for instance, as long as it's a defined system used for communication. Either way, the fact that they convey meaning is important; without it, it is clearly not a language.

>>52151872
>I don't even think tvtropes is all that bad. A tad autistic in concept, but it can occasionally be interesting.
I agree.
But
>Just stay the hell away from its community pages because that straight is straight-up high-concentration autism
Here starts the issue
> I don't think it's the kind of thing that singlehandedly discredits otherwise useful terms and concepts like tropes
It doesn't. But on 4chan like with every community there are people, most of the times not the sharpest tools, that blindly follow what they perceive as the opinion of their community.
Because the TVTropes community is shit and not "4chan approved", to their eyes it must mean everything connected to TVTropes is bad. Add to that what >>52151892 wrote and the fact that TVTropes sometimes list as "tropes" stuff that arguably shouldn't, and voilà, here is how for some people the word "trope" has become a bad word.

>>52152001
>he projects his own context onto the conversation
Then, unless the observer is psychic, he's not turning these meaningless signals into a language, because they're not deliberately conveying the intended message.

Merely having rules doesn't make something a language. It has to be a system used for communicating meaning. Having an observer arbitrarily make up his own meaning is NOT communicating your meaning. How fucking hard is this to understand?

>>52152023
> Having an observer arbitrarily make up his own meaning is NOT communicating your meaning.
That's exactly my point.

Non-functional language.

>>52152008
>TVTropes sometimes list as "tropes" stuff that arguably shouldn't
Like what? This is my second time asking for examples of how the word "trope" is misused here. I only see it used to refer to examples of storytelling devices.

>>52152028
No, nonexistent language. It's not a language just because it has rules, unless it communicates meaning.

And no, making up your own meaning is not communication, see: the fucking definition of communication.

Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat this?

>>52152029
Not that dude, but for a while they had shit like 'this character is named Alice' and 'a puppy shows up in this show'.

>>52151907
>And yet, it is impossible for a meme to exist without something to transmit.

Such as a lolcat.

>becomes completely meaningless

Meaning is not relevant to the definition of a meme, or a gene, for that matter.

>>52152037
Yes, and I assume Alice was some quirky girl who went on adventures that defied conventional thought, while the puppy showing up was defined as a lighthearted moment of catharsis with a nonhuman character designed to humanize people.

Who cares? Everywhere is filled with autism, it'd be like judging 4chan exclusively by /b/, /pol/, /r9k/ and /v/.

>>52152037
I don't remember anything like that. In fact, they have a page for editors specifically instructing them that something isn't a trope purely because it exists in a story.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/PeopleSitOnChairs

>>52152037
I can see "this character is named Alice, and has vaguely Alice in Wonderland related adventures or happenings" as a trope, for example.

>>52152055
They do have some non-trope things covering things like fan reactions and trivia, actually, but they're specifically not supposed to be listed on a work's "main" page for this exact reason, which is why they have YMMV pages and trivia pages and like fifty other types of pages I don't bother to look at.

>>52152056
That would be a reference, or in tvtropes speak, a ShoutOut. Since it's a legitimate storytelling device to reference another story for some purpose, be it drama or humor or whatever, it would be a trope, wouldn't it?

>>52152052
>>52152037
as >>52152055
says, it's only supposed to count if it conveys some kind of meaning to the audience. You might be thinking of the trope Pet The Dog, which is where a character is humanized by doing some stereotypically human thing (such as petting a dog, though it doesn't have to literally involve petting or in any way interacting with a dog). The point isn't "there is a dog which is petted," it's "by petting a dog, we the audience see that character is more human than we previously thought."

Since I'm going full autism anyway, I might as well apply what we've learned here today - in one of my RPG campaigns, one of the PCs started out as an emotionless cloned assassin, but over the course of months and months of adventuring, he became more and more human. When he first did a small act of unnecessary kindness not in the pursuit of a tactical aim, that was a Pet The Dog moment because it conveyed to the rest of the party that this person is more human than they previously considered.

>>52151671

What? No, shut up, that doesn't enforce the CLEARLY hard-coded masculine and feminine roles of sexual being and physically powerful being that have existed as part of human programming since day one with no real, non-faked derivations, ever.

Wait, no, I've got those back wards.

Hang on, I can get this.

File: a08961e517912958d392ec0bd76d3ea706a4128fbce5c01c2011a42c688020e1_1[1].jpg (40KB, 800x726px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x726px

>>52146933
I don't get this shit. I get prostitution but a waitresses showing skin? How pathetic do you have to be to fall for that shit in a society where prostitution is legal? What's the trick behind this, you're paying extra to get FUCKING NOTHING in return? If you want a woman to exploit you without getting anything in return, just fucking marry her.

>>52145675
Wait a second.. that's not a bar wench, that's JewTits The Merchant! A.k.a the best waifu in Dragon's Dogma

>>52152168

>What is Hooters

Some men will, in fact, pay extra if a woman flirts and pretends to be interested.

>>52151671
They predate them as work humans did (maybe - humans aren't the only species who practice prostitution, some kinds of monkeys do as well. Not a racial joke.) but professional work suggests you're doing it on behalf of someone else in exchange for compensation, rather than doing it for yourself. Obviously there are no specific and credible records proving who the first prostitute and mercenary were, but security and sex were quite likely either the first things to be done as a professional work (rather than for self-survival of yourself and your clan) or at least so near the first you can't prove they came after something else.

Foraging for food and eating it isn't a profession, it's just survival. Guarding your clan's cave so they don't have to worry about their shit in exchange for a cut of the food the others gather while they're out not worrying about their shit is professional work. See the difference?

>>52152197
America is one of those retarded countries where selling your pussy for money in a formal contract is illegal though. Fucking hell, you even have female cops pretending to be prostitutes just so they can fine men for what isn't just normal but has been the norm for most of human history in one form or another.

>>52145675
Yes.

>>52152202
In short, I have a gun by my desk and, if it were really needed, I would defend my house from a home invasion. That doesn't make me a mercenary or a security guard, even though guarding the house is technically work I am doing. If I told my neighbor, hey, I'll also watch over their place if they pay me, then I would be working as a security guard.

>>52152168
>What's the trick behind this, you're paying extra to get FUCKING NOTHING in return?
Define "atmosphere" for me as it pertains to a dining establishment.
Yes, I'm equating affable tits to atmosphere here.

"Affable Tits" might be a good name for something.

>>52152226
Blame Victorian era puritanic double-standards.

To be fair, it's smart.
If you don't put an official price guideline on the product (sex, in this case) you're selling, you can inflate its price with no one the wiser.

>inb4 fedora
I'm just making an observation.

>>52152202
>some kinds of monkeys do as well. Not a racial joke.
The fact that you have to clarify this really says much about the way people think around here.

>>52152226
Probably because prostitutes are incredibly vile human beings that few want in their neighborhood, especially around children, and who largely short circuit the engine of civilization? There are certainly plenty in my neighborhood, and they are horrendous.

File: 1408201305957.jpg (128KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1920x1080px

>>52152310
>If you don't put an official price guideline on the product (sex, in this case) you're selling, you can inflate its price with no one the wiser.
But that's exactly why prostitution is good. It allows sex to participate on the free market as a good, prevents arbitrary inflation of the product and this is incredibly bad news for women forces women who want a romantic relationship to either provide something better than just sex or to greatly decrease the price of sex below market standards.

You're making a proper observation, but drawing the wrong conclusion. I don't believe the free market can fix anything, but this it certainly can.

>>52152357
Meh, in my opinion prostitutes are probably the most honest women out there.

>>52152357
>I have a moralistic view of sex!
Prostitutes in a country where they are illegal tend to be the ones who are the most desperate. That's why they seem "vile" - because they're, and I'm not being stereotypical, I'm responding to well-known statistical facts - they're one, criminals, and two, fucking poor, and three, they're drug addicts.

In places with legalized prostitution, even in Nevada for an American example, prostitution is a much much more safe and clean affair. And if that still isn't your kind of thing, I mean, that's cool ,but at least you're not handing your money to a literal pimp so a desperately poor woman can get one more hit of crack.

>>52152357
Streetwalkers are ugly as fuck. And I don't mean they are physically unattractive, I mean they're a sign of urban blight and usually desperate junkies.

More, for lack of a better word, "professional" prostitutes aren't a problem at all. Indeed, you probably don't even know they're there, all around you in fact.

For a metaphor, on average if you're in the USA, one out of every twenty people or so is licensed to carry a concealed gun. It's lower in the blue states and higher in the red states - in the southeast it's more like one in ten. Yet I doubt you think of yourself as being surrounded by armed people every time you go to the grocery store, even though statistically, you probably pass two or three every time you go out. Yet if you saw a man holding a loaded rifle in the grocery store, you'd (not wrongly) think the guy is nuts and possibly dangerous. But if you decided that nut with the rifle was all gun owners, you'd be sorely mistaken.

>>52152366
>But that's exactly why prostitution is good.
That's exactly the point I'm making?

Also, I just had a funny thought: imagine a man and a woman having a divorce case in court. It would be extremely amusing if the woman recorded all the instances of sex and qualified the amount of minimum payment as prostitution services, citing the prostitution rates, demanding the appropriate payment, unwittingly admitting she cares about money more than calling herself basically a whore.

>>52152415
That wouldn't work as a legal argument unless a REALLY bizarre prenup specified it. You can't give a service away and then charge for it post-facto.

It'd be like a homeless guy running up to your car at a red light, washing your windshield, asking for money, then suing you for services rendered when you refuse. You didn't agree to payment ahead of time, so it can't be legally demanded afterwards.

>>52152381
"honest" in that they'd rather avoid honest work, I suppose. Not a good example to set for a community.

>>52152382

>I have a moralistic view of sex!

Good for you, I guess. I take a more coolly pragmatic view. Some things may be justifiable according to an abstract notion of "freedom," but presumably according to that same notion of freedom, the people are still allowed to vote on banning actions that are deemed corrosive to society.

>prostitution is a much much more safe and clean affair.

Good for people who want to turn their neighborhood into a mecca of prostitution, I suppose.

File: 1285885699239.png (234KB, 432x480px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 432x480px

>>52152459
Your presumption is faulty. 50%+1 controlling the actions of everyone else in society through force is not freedom by any reasonable metric of the term. I'm not sure how that logic falls under "coolly pragmatic," but props on finding an excuse to call yourself cool, really comes off the way you intended, for sure.

and no, I was mocking you for your moralistic view of sex.

>>52152415
I doubt those services would ever add up to more than half the man's past, present and future income so even if this was illegal no woman in her right mind would reason in this way and risk her vaginamony.

>>52152414
Even if they were good looking, "why work when I can get tons of cash fuckin and then goof off all day" would not be exactly a good meme to encourage. The fact that most prostitutes are visibly disgusting or behave in an obviously appalling fashion is only icing on the cake.

>>52152459
> Good for people who want to turn their neighborhood into a mecca of prostitution, I suppose.
Not him, but I'd rather sex to be a perfectly legitimate service than for everyone to try and get into a relationship. Sex is a basic need that needs to be satisfied - why not create a legal institution for it?
And that's coming from someone who has a girlfriend.

>>52152357

>prostitutes are incredibly vile human beings that few want in their neighborhood

Quite literally only the case because they've been pushed underground, anyone who is forced to conceal who they are and what they do will usually be pretty questionable.

In, say, frontier-era America, prostitutes were just normal, productive members of society who had a job like everyone else did.

If the profession itself wasn't considered dirty then non-dirty people wouldn't have problems associating with it.

>>52152459
Why is it not honest work?

It is work - they are performing a desired action (as evidenced by the market) in exchange for compensation. I doubt you disagree that constitutes work, labor, effort in exchange for reward.

So how is it dishonest? Every prostitute I've known has been entirely up front about what price will get what. There is no ambiguity, no misunderstanding. So it's neither dishonest, nor not-work. Therefore, it is honest work, is it not?

>>52152490
>The fact that most prostitutes are visibly disgusting or behave in an obviously appalling fashion is only icing on the cake.
Maybe if competition were legal, the disgusting ones wouldn't be able to compete with the non-disgusting ones. Therefore, fewer disgusting prostitutes. Just a thought.

Also, I hardly think the average prostitute gets "tons of cash." And, if getting "tons of cash" (simple knowledge of how markets work suggests this is done by providing a richly desired service) for enjoyable work that does not include any victims or harm done to other people were that easy, I don't see why it should be discouraged.

>>52152481

>not freedom by any reasonable metric of the term.

Should democracies not be free to decide for themselves what is and isn't legal? By what right should prostitution be forced on an unwilling population?

>I was mocking you for your moralistic view of sex

Yes, I'm aware that you can only conceive of moralistic anti prostitution perspectives. That's a problem with your limited frame of reference.

>>52147786
Hell, I've known gay guys that like boobs.

Literally, everyone likes boobs.

>>52152507
silly anon, don't you know by "honest work" he means "work i personally approve of"

seriously, i think this guy's mother was a whore or something. nobody but religious nutcases and people with serious baggage hates prostitutes.

>>52152518
Democracy is not two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch. And we do not live in a simple democracy defined by the 50%+1 majority deciding the rules with limitless power. We never have. Seems like you've built up unrealistic expectations anon.

And I'm still waiting to hear how your stance is "coolly pragmatic." Sounds more like it's built on an idea of how the law works that is so shallow and incorrect even a grade-school civics class would laugh you out of the room.

File: 1336957677890.png (130KB, 442x353px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 442x353px

>>52152495
The biggest irony here? The moralism about prostitution is incredibly, INCREDIBLY recent. During the Middle Ages and the so-called repression of the Catholic Church, prostitution was downright condoned (though not approved of) by the Catholic Church because it prevented the greater sin of rape. Prostitutes were only limited (depending on national laws) in where they were allowed to offer their services and what clothes they were expected to wear (a balance between not looking like regular women but not dressing too overtly lewdly). Even the literal Saint King Louis IX gave up on his attempts to ban prostitution after less than two years, and eased it to "prostitutes may only advertise themselves outside of the city walls and away from respectable streets and institutions". And let's not forget Theodora the Whore, we can't discuss medieval prostitutes without discussing her!

Food for thought, especially for those people who like saying "these aren't the middle ages, this is [the current year]!"

>>52152495
>Quite literally only the case because they've been pushed underground

Don't forget the more obvious element of "why exactly should I work for $15/hr when I could work for $200/hr?" (or what the fuck ever)

>>52152518
>By what right should prostitution be forced on an unwilling population?
Because we live in a society where in every other harmless field of human endeavor we have every right to expect not to be interfered with in our private affairs, you narcissistic fuckwit.

What I do in my private life with my own body, resources, and consenting others is absolutely no business of yours, anyone else's, or society's at large. This liberty also extends to you - no matter how much I, your neighbor, or 99% of the population may want something done with your private body, for instance, we can't simply vote it to happen because MAJORITY RULES, GUYS. If more than half of people in this thread told you to kill yourself, would you, simply because a majority of people told you to? No, because why should we exercise any power over your life simply due to numbers?

>>52152547
Only high-class prostitutes make that kind of money. Most street prostitutes give 90% of that to a pimp.

>>52152507
>Maybe if competition were legal, the disgusting ones wouldn't be able to compete with the non-disgusting ones. Therefore, fewer disgusting prostitutes.

Makes no sense at all. There is presumably a range of prices available for hookers, from relatively cheap for the horrendous ones to relatively expensive for the good looking ones and up. There's always gonna be a market.

>Also, I hardly think the average prostitute gets "tons of cash."

Compared to, say, a grocery store worker, definitely.

>>52152538
>And we do not live in a simple democracy defined by the 50%+1 majority deciding the rules with limitless power.

I don't get it. You were the one that chose to describe it as such.

File: bubble_brew_by_sanura35-d2z14zb.png (321KB, 829x648px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 829x648px

Anyone wondering why the United States has puritanical tendancies about sex and prostitution is an idiot.

This thread needs more wenches.

>>52152569
>Compared to, say, a grocery store worker, definitely.
Citation needed. How much does the average streetwalker make? Not how much they take - we know perfectly well they don't keep 100% of their money - but what's their takehome pay?

>Makes no sense at all
Do you know literally nothing about how markets work? For that matter, do you know how competition works? Right now those prosittutes willing to break the law - those who are, by definition, criminals - are the only ones available, thus, the low-class ones have a monopoly on the service. In countries that have legalized prostitution, this is not nearly the issue it is in the States.

Bar wenches are boring.

I deman WAR WENCHES!

File: Johnathan Morningmist and a Maid.png (3MB, 2260x2481px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2260x2481px

>>52145675
>Magic-realm or essential fantasy trope?
One of the few instances of good vampires in 1e from Lords of Darkness is the Vampire, Johnathan Morningmist, AKA, the luckiest fucking Elf in the realms.

He, and his less cooler brother were doing some dungeoneering once upon a fucking time, and oh shit, TPK!, and Jonathan almost made it out before a succubus energy drained him to death. But you see, there's a 1% chance this can turn you into a GREATER vampire, which allowed him immunity to sunlight at the cost of not using his vampiric abilities during the daytime, and his brother, who earlier to his own demise, ended up a regular vampire.

So anyhow, the brothers go for a short career of CE adventure's until one day, Johnathan unwittingly puts on a Helm of Opposite alignment, and immediately contemplates the horrors he's wrought, like Angelus from Buffy the Vampire slayer getting his soul back, and the two split up.

So what does he do with himself after this?

He fucking sets up a bar with his pilfered riches, and maintains a tight-knit circle of friends, get's a ring of sustenance so he only needs blood once a month or so, and uses his Domination ability to take cute Evil-aligned Street-urchin thief/rogue girls under his wing and makes them work as his fucking barmaids until they change alignment by his good graces. Also, to fix his vampire-spawn esque ass-face, he uses a magical mirror that puts on an Altar-self

In short, Vampire-Elf living the fucking dream in his sweet-ass maid tavern.

>>52152568
>If more than half of people in this thread told you to kill yourself, would you, simply because a majority of people told you to?

I don't think I understand how supporting the democratic right of the people to set what is legal for their own communities = slight majority has their will enshrined as God.

File: every impromptu debate about morality on tg.jpg (339KB, 900x1213px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 900x1213px

>open the thread about bar wenches
>see discussion about the nature of memes, societal benefits of prostitution and misuse of the concept of tropes
Why am I not surprised?

>>52152595
>Citation needed.

Now you're just being argumentative.

>Do you know literally nothing about how markets work?

Do you? You seem to think that legalized prostitution -> uggos get honest jobs for a change. There's still probably going to be a market for uggos even in Las Vegas.

>>52152605
The "democratic right" of people to control other people's private actions is neither a right, nor how it works in the real world. If all it takes is a vote with no further constraints, then theoretically a community can make anything physically possible happen by voting on it.

And if 50%+1 is not the metric you're using for a vote, please tell me what is. 66%? 75%? Well? What is it? You say a vote is important, but a vote is just a number. If it's not majority that decides a vote, what does?

I think you just hate prostitutes, probably due to some childhood trauma or shit like that, and are finding dumbass mental gymnastics ways to justify it. I think this because you can't make a single post without moralistically denouncing them as "vile," "disgusting," "horrendous," "corrosive," and accuse them of "short circuiting the engine of civilization."

Maybe if you don't wanna come off as a moralistic fucktard, don't constantly describe them in moralistic terms and then disingenuously pretend you're discussing the theory of democracy instead.

File: 2016-11-30 19_49_48-TSR 9240 - REF5 - Lords of Darkness.pdf - Adobe Reader Greater Vampire.png (182KB, 743x896px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 743x896px

>>52152603
I should also note, that one of the endings for whatever questline involved Neverwinter Nights Hordes of the Underdark in Module format, originally had one of the Uses of Mephistopheles' True name to force him to become some kind of cute-looking barmaid girl as punishment for his lava bulllshit.

>>52152568

>Most street prostitutes give 90% of that to a pimp.

Another retarded aspect of modern prostitution that legitimizing the profession would cut out.

File: cover98512-medium.png (404KB, 255x404px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 255x404px

>>52152598
go on...

>>52152603
I know that rule.

Now I'm confused. Isn't there a formerly CG (now CN) elf vampire named Jaden Sunstar who was the one time mentor of Strahd who was a refugee from FR as well? How many canon AD&D CG elf vampires were there?

Interesting that the obscure DMag succubus vampire thing made it into the regular canon, though.

File: 2016-11-30 20_30_47-TSR 9240 - REF5 - Lords of Darkness.pdf - Adobe Reader.png (44KB, 222x574px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 222x574px

>>52152651

>>52147755
Gonna need a source on that recipe

>>52152636
>There's still probably going to be a market for uggos even in Las Vegas.
Why? Even among uggos, there are clean ones and nasty ones. Sure, I can't afford a $10,000/night high-class whore, but I can look at two uggos and see one is drooling and shaking from a meth addiction and one is just a decent person putting herself through school, and prefer the latter. This puts market pressure on the former to clean up her shit and disencourages that kind of behavior.

>argumentative
You made a definitive claim, that streetwalkers make more money than grocery store workers. I'm asking you to back it up because I don't believe it to be true.

>>52147161
Shut up Steve Miller's Evil Twin.

>>52152650

>I think you just hate prostitutes, probably due to some childhood trauma or shit like that

You don't need to go all Freud.

>short circuiting the engine of civilization
>moralistic

Ok anon, do you consider the episode of Futurama in which it reveals an apocalypse occurred because people were too busy fucking robots? Do you consider that "moralistic?"

File: 1408206299487.png (61KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 625x626px

>>52152650
>Pfft, you're so narrowminded for thinking I'm judging these vile disgusting creatures ruining civilization. I'm just being coolly pragmatic.

>>52152681
>This puts market pressure on the former to clean up her shit and disencourages that kind of behavior.

Yet uggos they remain.

>>52152691
>Ok anon, do you consider the episode of Futurama in which it reveals an apocalypse occurred because people were too busy fucking robots?
Not him, but if sexrobots drive men away from women it only confirms women never had anything to offer other than sex. By that point artificial wombs are what will save society, not women.

>>52152681
>You made a definitive claim, that streetwalkers make more money than grocery store workers. I'm asking you to back it up because I don't believe it to be true.
Not that anon, but they certainly make more per hour.
Unless you expect a whore to grant you 30 minutes of servicing for a fiver.

File: 1303976652763.jpg (20KB, 469x304px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 469x304px

>>52152691
If prostitution hasn't brought about the fall of civilization in the last ten thousand years, I don't think it's going to do so anytime soon, regardless of what a subpar animated comedy said.

File: 1358431172367.jpg (10KB, 200x235px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x235px

>>52152691
>Do you consider that "moralistic?"
Going on and on about how prostitutes are "vile" and "disgusting" does come off as moralistic judgment, yes. Do you really not understand that?

The civilization thing was just hilarious hyperbole that says more about you than prostitutes. I'd swear in ten years the FBI is going to raid your house and find two dozen whores buried in your garden, and the only statement you'll give is that you're purifying the filth from your community.

>>52152691
>>52152696

>Quite literally called "the oldest profession"
>Ruining society

File: jander_sunstar_fanart_by_kaffer86-d82o3xm.jpg (1MB, 1799x3726px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1799x3726px

>>52152656
Yeah, as it turned out, there's a notable error where vampirism was concerned where this showed up: It goes like this:

Lesser Vampire = Vampire Spawn
Greater Vampire = True Vampire

Then, we have the instance presented of a Greater Vampire which was with Jonathan Morningmist, which is actually Vampire Spawn with sunlight immunity at cost of no Vampire acquired power usage, so they used the same term.

Johannathan was in fact, mentioned a few times in the DM, so he was given enough significant due to be re mentioned.

THEN Orcus got his own set of Greater Vampires, which were true vampires with the same features as Johanathan, made by contracting a Succubus in Ocrus's Service to turn the person, whom often married said vampire later, but this was lost and forgotten, like Orcus' power armour.

Strangley, I've only found the statement of the Orcus vampirism existing, and NO source on it, which sucks.

The other type of Sunlight immune vampire was the Terror vampire from Bloodlines in the Dragon magazine, which could go under sunlight based on it's Charisma for a duration.

The elf you're on about I think, spent a duration CE before alignment shifting, because he liked this girl Strahd drove mad, and as for WHY Elves get off easy from the MANDATORY alignment shift of Vampirism, it's because **Kanchelsis hates the Seldarine being the mixed-blood bastard he is, there's even a racial Elven Vampirism which directly perverts all that is Elven in an elf to a twisted nature hating thing** There was also that Ravenloft dude who hid his vampirism in that quest with the werewolves.

>>52152713
That is why I asked about their takehome pay; doubtless it's the amount that they could technically make in 60 minutes' work.

File: internet argument.png (365KB, 677x443px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 677x443px

>>52152718

Ah yes, the "purposefully misinterpret other people's statements" card.

>>52152718
>subpar animated comedy
Go fuck yourself with a rusty fish hook.

File: goalpost.jpg (11KB, 264x176px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 264x176px

>>52152733
Ok.

>>52152539
Hell, in medieval Italy, prostitutes were seen as vital elements in teaching homosexual men the pleasures of the female embrace.

>>52152748
>doubtless
>doubt.jpg
I, at least, won't make claims to knowledge I cleary don't posess.

>>52152768
I misworded that post, but I hope it's clear what I was getting at.

>>52152760
I'm not moving the goalpost, it's exactly what I said before. Since only the engine of civilization bit was what you bothered to respond to, should I then assume you agree all the other lurid terms you've used are, in fact, moralistic judgments? Or were you just ignoring them and hoping I wouldn't notice? Either way, not moving any goalposts here.

>>52152741
I know the article the succubus greater vampire thingy is from, didn't know it ever made it into the rules. I don't know about anything about them having spawn that differ from the norm, however. Also, the game largely leaves to one's imagination what a "half strength xyz" is in AD&D.

Funny that there is a specific exception for why there are so many goddamn good elven vampires (well, two).

The bizarro scarred daywalker Ravenloft vampires are exceedingly dope.

>>52145675
Do drow have tavern beefcakes?

Do they even have taverns or is it just spiders all the time?

File: IMG_1997.jpg (188KB, 1224x1445px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1224x1445px

>>52146841

>>52152771
>If this is not the correct interpretation, please clarify.

It was a simple question of whether one considers said Futurama subplot to be "moralistic." A pretty simple question.

>insanity

Ok, questioning your moralistic views on sex is insanity.

>or just what you're referring to when you're talking about voting because it's clearly not a simple majority decision,

The 50%+1 thing was just a projection levied at me.

>>52152741
Anyhow, it's very rare for good vampires to exist, because they're literally a clusterfuck of things, inherited mixed blood from a Divine mistake that was even censored in later creation myth, the inherent "will" found in all creatures of negative energy, That default drivers seat feature which amounts to KILL THE LIVING which Accerak tried to replace with his own with that complex spliced Epic spell/Lich Power ritual the hunger, which varies on type of vampire, because the base vampire is after Life-force, which is the composite energies of the soul, and Blood is actually the means to it, for that kind of undead, opposed to the Ravenloft Vampire, which ACTUALLY needs the blood to survive, it's something that is overlooked you see. Then there's the fact that Vampires are associated with the Abyss to a degree that they share that nasty little will it has which tells it's creations to destroy everything, and actively produces demons to help it achieve these ends.

Notably, in 3.5 when we had the composite features of the Plane of Negative Energy broken down, the core thing that actually makes something "Undead" is infact, having a connection to the Plane of Negative energy, shown through monster class progression, mention of the contiuation of the concepts the 2e Mortibund class explored, how Pale masters worked, and Orcus's Switch type feature where he varies from a living form to a dead form, this makes sense if you've read Van Richten's Guide to Lichdom which explored a very expansive subject on how the Plane of negative energy interacted with Liches to a ridiculously beneficial degree.

>>52152786
The events of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft aren't canon, this was mentioned in one of the two 3.5 DM articles on Strahd, stating he's still in the Demilane of Dread, that Module was a remake of the original 1e adventure.

>>52152810
No, try harder than that.

You brought up voting, you brought up democracy, you brought up people having a "right" to vote on how other people can behave. So spill - what do you mean by that? If it's not 50%+1, what is the metric here? Answer this or fuck off. I want a number.

>>52152780
>should I then assume you agree all the other lurid terms you've used are, in fact, moralistic judgments?

Nah. That's simply you being unable or unwilling to perceive any objection to prostitution that isn't based in morality.

>>52152812
It's a good thing really, that the Demiplane of dread keeps it's Racial vampires, Nosferatu, Ching-shi, Vrrylockas, Vampyres, to itself, as the other realms only have to deal with vampires featured in the Libris Mortis, Monstrous Vampires, and the ones from Bloodlines in rarity, but due to Kanchelsis being so fucking lazy it's unfunny it's usually just base vampire/Vampire Lord.

Last time a vampire gave a shit, it nearly became Elder evil with an army of 40'000 Undead, always fear non CE vampires, they're usually Emminent or higher Age-category levels of fucking broken.

Luckily, due to Kanchelsis not giving a shit, his followers being old money undead with the high priest SHAGGING LLOTH, and vampires getting shafted to Orcus in 4e-5e, then a development-based progression in 5e, they're in actual fact, LESS of a threat than they used to be.

File: 41IdRAWCAnL.jpg (31KB, 357x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 357x500px

>>52149688
I wish you were wrong.

Want the one with the tiles next? The cat or the deer masturbation? No-dick horse herder?

>>52152831
So what is it based in?

"Cool pragmatism" is not an answer, or at least, not a sensible one. Terms like "vile" and "disgusting" are subjective judgments and that's why they're being called as such. If you believe this is in error, don't just say "nuh uh," explain how it's wrong.

>>52152708
That's some projection there friend

>>52152818

You aren't being clear. Are you asking for a brief rundown on how local and county governments in Nevada decide to allow, disallow or regulate prostitution, or what?

>>52152857
It's not projection, nor even a prediction. It's an "if... then..." reasoning, you fucking cuck. If you disagree with what comes after the "then..." you can only do so by disagreeing with the "if" statement. Which would mean that you (unlike many feminists) don't believe sex robots will lead to men disregarding women.

This is basic logic here, but progressives were never really big on that.

>>52152846
Is this the female equivalent of Chuck Tingle?

>>52152847

>So what is it based in?

Are you actually interested or are you going to just drag the conversation back to "nuh uh, you said prostitutes are icky, and I refuse to allow this conversation to move past that?"

>>52152893
You say a community has a "democratic right" to set what is legal for their own communities. You referred to "voting on banning actions that are deemed corrosive to society."

I am asking what percentage of people have to vote on such a thing. On the assumption that you meant a majority vote, I went with 50%+1, but you complained that that was my assumption and not yours. So if it's not a majority vote, what is it?

I want a number.

>>52152756
If it was actually good then it wouldn't have gotten cancelled...again.

>>52152908
>basic logic
>literally degenerate daydreaming about fucking his animu waifu robot

Hahahahaha.

>>52152760
Not him, but pointing out a way in which you're being stupid is not "moving the goalposts".

File: 1411609655450.jpg (52KB, 576x418px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 576x418px

>>52152913
You've repeatedly denied that it's based in moralistic judgment, despite using moralistic, judgmental terms. Hence, I asked if it's not a moralistic judgment, what IS it. You've yet to answer this question. This is not the first time this question has been posed to you, and you didn't answer it last time either.

Is this like that guy on Austin Powers? You just won't answer a question until you've been asked three times?

>>52152913
>Why won't you move past the stupid thing I said that contradicted the other stupid thing I said! Stop pointing out my contradiction!!

For someone who denies their objection is based in morality, you sure do make a lot of moral judgments. Calling people "vile" and "corrosive" is not a rational argument. It's not an objective claim - there is no objective test for vileness, so it's a subjective judgment.

And no, we WON'T just "move past" it without you actually explaining yourself.

Let me help here:
>>52152810
>It was a simple question of whether one considers said Futurama subplot to be "moralistic." A pretty simple question.
This refers to >>52152691
>do you consider the episode of Futurama in which it reveals an apocalypse occurred because people were too busy fucking robots? Do you consider that "moralistic?"

>>52152771
>If this is not the correct interpretation, please clarify.
Refers to >>52152718
>prostitution hasn't brought about the fall of civilization
Which referred to >>52152691
>>short circuiting the engine of civilization
>>moralistic

He wasn't answering the question about futurama, and his word choice made that clear.

>>52152921

Again, are you asking about prostitution in Nevada and how munincipal and county governments can selectively place limits or bans, or are you asking about what I personally think it should be in a hermetically sealed village on a demiplane or moonlet somewhere?

>>52152925
Because no good show in the history of television was ever cancelled.
It was good.
It was also expensive as fuck to produce.

File: 1485914092199.jpg (22KB, 311x306px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 311x306px

>>52153023
Alright, this was fun, but now you're just plain not answering anymore. I don't know how to make the question any clearer and if your only answer is to bring up stuff, like specific localities or states, that wasn't in the question and ask if the question is actually referring to that instead - I'm not gonna spend all morning finding different ways of wording the same question, and you clearly have no intention of answering it. Sorry, but I've asked the same question too many times to no even attempt at an answer and it's not fun anymore. If you still want to answer the question, go ahead, but I can't make it any clearer than I already have

>>52152947

>You've yet to answer the question.

So you want to have a real conversation now? I approve, in the slim chance that you're telling the truth.

It boils down to (obviously perceived) value of labor and value of sex.

Do you want to have a real conversation, or just throw insults?

>>52153042
>Because no good show in the history of television was ever cancelled.
Not really. If the show was actually good then it wouldn't have gotten cancelled.
>It was good.
It was mediocre anon, the only reason you remember it is because of nostalgia.
>It was also expensive as fuck to produce.
I find that hard to believe.

>>52153080
>but now you're just plain not answering anymore.

Trying to, yet you aggressively and adamantly refuse to have a conversation in good faith. Which is unfortunate. Why don't you like real conversations, anon? I am asking you -- is your query based off what is the law as is (presumably in Nevada, or if not, where), or is your query based off what I think it "should" be?

The answer is simple -- you only want to throw insults, not have a two way conversation. The answer is "neither, I just want to seem witty on the internet." And that's fine.

>>52153088
>It boils down to (obviously perceived) value of labor and value of sex.
Bullshit. Terms like "disgusting" and "vile" have no place in a discussion of value of labor. "Vile" is not a labor value.

I want to know why you do not feel those are moralistic judgments; alternatively, you can admit that they are. If they're not, what are they?

inb4
>can't you just move past-
No, and why exactly should we move past examining the past stupid things you said? That's not how a "real conversation" works, you don't get to arbitrarily demand we "move past" something you don't want to answer.

>>52153138
>Terms like "disgusting" and "vile" have no place in a discussion of value of labor

I knew it. I fucking called it.

>>52153090
>Not really. If the show was actually good then it wouldn't have gotten cancelled.
Holy shit! Do you actually believe that no good show in the history of television was ever cancelled?
Who is operating the keyboard for you?
Do they know this is an 18+ website?

>It was mediocre anon, the only reason you remember it is because of nostalgia.
No, I remember a lot of excellent writing, talented voice work, beautiful animation, and general high quality all around.
Seriously, get busy with that fish hook.

>I find that hard to believe.
Quantifiable facts have the neat quality of being true independent of your belief.

>>52153135
see >>52153080
>bring up stuff, like specific localities or states, that wasn't in the question and ask if the question is actually referring to that instead
If you can't puzzle this together you're either drunk, trolling, or dumb.

>>52153135
You are incapable of clarifying your own points, evade answering questions, and yet you accuse him of not wanting to converse.
You're silly.

>>52153160
I want to know why you do not feel those are moralistic judgments; alternatively, you can admit that they are. If they're not, what are they?

>>52153088
>It boils down to (obviously perceived) value of labor and value of sex.
Why do you bother with the moralistic bullshit if it's just about value math?

>>52153160
Jackass, they said as much.
You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.
Own up to your words and explain yourself like an adult.

>>52153186
It's quite obviously bait, I just sincerely find it fun to pursue a troll so far and see how long it takes them to land on an untenable platform. Good trolls can be quite slippery, but most eventually end up in an endless loop of gymnastics and evasion.

>>52153207
>an endless loop of gymnastics and evasion
Rather poetic for a description of what resembles a spastic fish flopping as it drowns in the air we breathe.

>tl;dr
>i am an autistic virgin from /r9k/ and i am mad that there are people that pay women to have sex while i don't get any

>>52153169
Considering the question was probably intended as "aha, anon thinks you just need 50%+1 to have limitless power" >>52152538
its entirely reasonable to ask.

In a hypothetical "ideal" society, I would expect it to be up to whoever owns the property what "business," if any, can be allowed to take place on it, and if it is public property or makes use of public utilities (ie. ROADS), then obviously the public needs to have a say on what sort of business is legitimate and what is not, depending on what system they use for assigning laws.

As far as a "universal" system, I'd probably go with having the elected representative of the area the prostitution is happening in making the call. If and when he is replaced, his successor can make a different call.

>>52146841
Take the knot.

>>52153267
Close.
This is /tg/ after all.

>>tl;dr
>>I am an autistic virgin from /r9k/ and I am mad that there are people that pretend to pay women to have sex while I don't get any, even when I pretend.

>>52153271
At least in the American system, representatives represent the power of the citizens - the whole "consent of the governed" thing is a big deal in American legislative and legal theory.

The thing is, and I realize this principle is widely violated in practice in other topics as well because, well, congress are retards - how can representatives use powers their governed, their constituents, don't have to give them?

A group of citizens cannot tell me what to do with my body, yet they can elect a representative whose power derives from their constituents in order to do something in the name of their constituents that their constituents could not themselves do? That doesn't make any sense. From where do they derive the legal power to make such a decision on private property?

Of course, there are other underpinning legal theories that I also believe are inconsistent with bans on prostitution, such as self-ownership. I don't understand how, if a person is the sole and exclusive owner of their person, how the government can tell a person what to do with their own body voluntarily.

File: nodding_in_agreement.gif (2MB, 263x227px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 263x227px

>>52153291
Yes. Yes. Yes.

>>52153188
Aha, someone who is interested in actually talking.

>I want to know why you do not feel those are moralistic judgments

I don't find that calling someone (perceived) synonyms for gross, when they do something pretty unsanitary for a living, to indicate a "moral" disdain.

To put it another way, I know at least one woman who is morally very supportive of homosexuals, bisexuals, etc. (wouldn't shop at Hobby Lobby, that sort of thing) but considers them as very high risk and so wouldn't want to get into a sexual relationship with MSM.

>>52153135
>you aggressively and adamantly refuse to have a conversation in good faith

I've just read through post after post of you doing exactly this, hypocrite.

>>52153344
>when they do something pretty unsanitary for a living
>sex is unsanitary

What? You are a virgin. I'm not even going to ask you. I'm going to state it. You're a virgin.

You know what's unsanitary? Any activity that uses a body. Guess what? EVERY FUCKING THING IS UNSANITARY.

>>52153316

>how the government can tell a person what to do with their own body voluntarily.

Aha, but it is fully in keeping with American precedent that the government can dictate various limits on business transactions. That it happens to involve your body does not alter that fact.

>>52153344
>I don't find that calling someone (perceived) synonyms for gross, when they do something pretty unsanitary for a living, to indicate a "moral" disdain.

When you're describing the person rather than the thing they do, as you did, then its a moralistic judgement. You're not calling them people who do a gross thing, you're calling them gross people.

>>52153378

What a surprise, you insult me because I disagree with you.

>You know what's unsanitary?

Sex with a lot of people who have sex with a lot of people.

>>52153407
Moralistic judgments are... judgments based on morality. Not complicated.

File: 1335076403861.gif (130KB, 344x472px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 344x472px

>>52153344
Wow, that wasn't even intentional bait.

>literally copies and pastes the exact same question from the post before
>The exact same copied and pasted question is now "interested in actually talking"
Why wasn't it "actually talking" the last time I asked the exact same question word for word, anon?

Real talk, though I do want an answer for the above too:
If you don't think calling someone "vile" (dictionary: "extremely unpleasant; morally bad; wicked.") is a moral judgment, then you have made an error in vocabulary. The dictionary puts "disgusting" as "arousing revulsion or strong indignation." I am also not convinced this is a sufficient synonym for "unsanitary."

As for sanitation, in areas in which it is legal, it is often highly regulated for sanitary purposes. Off the top of my head, most legal brothels require regular STD and HIV screenings, cleaning in between every client, condoms, and regular general-health checkups. Quite honestly, a legal brothel is no less sanitary than your girlfriend, in fact, they're probably a lot safer, unless your girlfriend also gets routine STD tests. I don't think it's fair to categorize legal and regulated prostitution as unsanitary.

>>52153407
also makes a good point. You didn't say "their work is vile." You said they are: >>52152357
>incredibly vile human beings

>>52153420
It doesn't matter if you have sex with one person 100 times a year, or have sex with 100 people over the span of a year. The end result is the same. You have sex 100 times in a year.

How do you not understand this?

>>52153431
>It matters if you have sex with one person 100 times a year, or have sex with 100 people over the span of a year. The end result is the not same. You have sex 100 times in a year either way, but with 100 different partners you are drastically increasing your chances of becoming infected by an STD.
>How do you not understand this?

>>52153431
In the US, health classes often teach that when you fuck someone, you're basically fucking every person they've ever fucked, which is why Americans tend to panic at the thought of previous sexual partners.

And yes, that is pretty fucked up.

>>52153509
Oh, I see. You grew up in the deepest darkest pit in Dark Africa and you never heard of condoms.

>>52153509
see
>>52153430
>most legal brothels require regular STD and HIV screenings, cleaning in between every client, condoms, and regular general-health checkups. Quite honestly, a legal brothel is no less sanitary than your girlfriend, in fact, they're probably a lot safer, unless your girlfriend also gets routine STD tests.

Anyone can get an STD, but most people don't specifically test for STDs unless they're symptomatic. STDs like HPV and herpes and HIV can go for years without visible signs and yet be infectious.

Legal prostitutes are quite possibly SAFER than the average hookup.

>>52153431
>How do you not understand this?

How do you not understand differing levels of risk factor based off monogamous relationships vs having sex with literally 100 different people, presumably some of which are sex workers with high partner counts?

File: 1487477729246.jpg (72KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1280x720px

>>52153428
Calling people vile (morally bad, wicked, unpleasant) because of what they do is a judgment based on morality.

>>52153528
You can never trust a partner in a monogamous relationship anyway.

At least with a different partner, you can never be fooled into thinking they're cleaned.

>>52153528
Risks of getting an STD in a monogamous relationship are higher than getting one from a hooker - unless you're locking your significant other up in a cage in the basement.

File: 1454432875370.jpg (904KB, 1217x1811px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 1217x1811px

>>52153596
Or in a different kind of cage.

>>52153430

>then you have made an error in vocabulary

Sorry. I'm wrong and you're right that "vile" is not a synonym for ickiness (outside of D&D occasionally).

>I don't think it's fair to categorize legal and regulated prostitution as unsanitary.

Regulated, perhaps.

>>52147109
Men's oldest profession would be hunting I would think.

>>52153596
if she is fucking other people than it isnt actually a monogamous relationship, now is it?

>>52153520
Condoms are not 100% effective.
Each random partner increases the likelihood that the person you're with is a disease ridden scum puddle.
That likelihood does not increase with monogamy.

>>52153608
In first-world countries, they're synonymous. There is no legal, unregulated brothel in first-world countries. And yes, STD screenings are pretty much #1 on the list, right behind them are physical cleanings, medical examinations, and condom use.

>>52153576
>You can never trust a partner in a monogamous relationship anyway.

Sounds like a personal problem.

>>52153614
The point is that you can never be sure if your significant other is cheating.

>>52153627
It is a basic mechanic of subjective consciousness.

You cannot be sure of anything involving other subjective consciousnesses.

>>52145675
Not even a fantasy trope, that's just how it is IRL.

>>52153596
>Risks of getting an STD in a monogamous relationship are higher than getting one from a hooker

From goddamn spontaneous generation of STDs?

>>52153526
>Legal prostitutes are quite possibly SAFER than the average hookup.
And they are regularly sexing the average hookup as well as true degenerates.

>>52153642
Trust is a cornerstone of most relationships, dude.

File: 1446005960762.jpg (80KB, 500x496px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x496px

>>52153650
>true degenerates
>scum
You're still making moral judgments, not practical ones.

>>52153576
Yeah
See
>>52153627

>>52153642
>You cannot be sure of anything involving other subjective consciousnesses.
You should never, ever doubt what no one is sure of.

>>52153657
I think he is confusing trust with knowledge.
Trust is based on belief and experience, not outright knowledge.

>>52153657
Trust is something for fucking retards.

File: 542498524624.png (370KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 600x600px

>This fucking thread

>>52153619

Okay. Even in areas where REGULATED prostitution is legal in NV, illegal prostitution is still vastly more prevalent and generates more total income. So even if you have an option for regulated legal prostitution, you still have vast hordes of illegal prostitutes. I don't know of any reason to think legal prostitution helps anything.

Don't even think of citing tiny ass nordic countries.

>>52153661
Different guy.
Degenerate was a catch all term for unclean sex havers.
Scum was used literally and appropriately.

>>52153657
And most murders happen within a family.

>>52153686
Sounds like someone's trust was betrayed, anon. Do you want to talk about this? I'm not being facetious, by the way, it feels better when you talk with someone about it.

>>52153686
Your personal problems sound rough.

>>52153696
It's actually only legal in one county in Nevada as far as I know. Not everyone is gonna drive six hours to get laid.

>>52153702
For all you know, other people are not even conscious. They might be p-zombies, just blindly putting up a theatrical show of consciousness.

>>52153628
You can never be sure of anything.
For the sake of this argument, monogamous is monogamous.

>>52152926
You know that logic doesn't have a moral component, right?

>>52153723
I choose to take a leap of faith.
Even if there's nothing innately good about this world, then I'd rather create good on my own.

>>52153711
Right, but in that one county, illegal prostitution is still more prevalent, so I'm not convinced that legalizing prostitution helps at all.

>>52153702
>>52153708
I don't think you guys understand what subjective experiences mean.

Everyone you care for can just in a blink grab a shotgun and shoot your brains out. It has happened before, it happens right now somewhere in the world, and it will happen again.

You can never be sure about the motivations of the people around you. This is because your experience is subjective and private, just like the experiences of others.

>>52153726
For the sake of staying STD-free, you must always distrust your partner(s).

>>52153747
>in that one county, illegal prostitution is still more prevalent
[citation needed]

>>52153750

>I don't think you guys understand what subjective experiences mean.

They sure as hell don't mean "trust is for fucking retards."

Trusting some catastrophic fuckup who grabs a shotgun and blows your brai out, though, is probably indicative of "retardation" (or trust seriously misplaced and wilful blindness).

File: 1489283745152.gif (822KB, 600x366px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 600x366px

>>52146841

>>52153787
>Trusting some catastrophic fuckup who grabs a shotgun and blows your brai out, though, is probably indicative of "retardation" (or trust seriously misplaced and wilful blindness).
Yet every month, at least one parent in the USA gets murdered by their own loving son which they raised.

>>52153768
https://books.google.com/books?id=jYA7FJxisMIC&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false

Estimated $75 million vs $5 billion in Las Vegas alone.

File: stock-photo-i-m-sorry-74708947.jpg (34KB, 450x339px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 450x339px

OP here.

Sorry guys.

>>52153795
Wow, I bet parents are able to objectively analyze the strengths and flaws of their progeny!

>>52152056
Nope, the trope was 'Go Ask Alice' and was distressingly common. There was also 'Jack Attack', iirc.

>>52152118
Everything's Cuter With Kittens/More Precious With Puppies/Better With Penguins

>>52153822
More interesting than talking about hurr durr bar maid waifus, anyway.

>>52153430
>Quite honestly, a legal brothel is no less sanitary than your girlfriend, in fact, they're probably a lot safer, unless your girlfriend also gets routine STD tests.

While I agree with the general idea, the ladle at my local buffet gets cleaned more often than the one in my house, but which handle do you think I'd rather lick?

>>52153608
Holy shit are you such a fucking moron that you thought people in this thread were advocating illegal prostitution?

>>52153759
Best to simply burn off your genitalia.

File: 1308340512385.jpg (17KB, 361x356px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 361x356px

>>52153808
Prostitution is illegal in Clark County.

However, prostitution is no longer(?) limited to one county in Nevada, more than one county has legalized it. But Clark County isn't one of them.

This thread has more autism in it than the every half swording thread that's been up over the past week combined

File: 61728b4da1f934563b47479b3732e371.jpg (621KB, 855x1200px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 855x1200px

>>52153822
Now worries.

File: IMG_0146.jpg (90KB, 680x932px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 680x932px

>>52146841

>>52153882
>Holy shit are you such a fucking moron that you thought people in this thread were advocating illegal prostitution?

What? No, I thought people in this thread were somehow suggesting that legalizing prostitution is an anodyne for illegal prostitution. Which they were.

>>52145675
People who think fetishes are anathema need to fuck off and die, anyway. There is a line but it's more based on mutual courtesy than Miller v California.

As for prostitution, obviously legal prostitution would be a net benefit to society on many fronts, for example increasing societal acceptance and regulation both leading to improved conditions for market participants and an increase in both the quality and reliability of transactions.

File: 1488962628789-v.gif (2MB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 288x288px

>>52153948
I don't recall anyone saying that, as far as I can tell people just don't have a log in their ass about prostitution, it doesn't matter if legalizing it reduces it because nobody seems to think it's the vile, disgusting thing you seem to think it is.

>>52153983
>>52152382

Interestingly, the book also suggests that legal prostitutes still do tons of illegal drugs. And I don't think its cuz they're "victims of the system," I think its because "I wanna get high."

>>52153948
And your argument to the contrary was "In a rural county with legal prostitution, they don't have as much prostitution as a densely populated county where it isn't legal, therefore legal prostitution doesn't reduce illegal prostitution."

In practice, Nevada's system is fucked six ways from Sunday anyway. There are all sorts of obtuse laws that restrict them that serious advocates want to get rid of. For instance, prostitutes basically have to live at the brothels and can't intermingle with local communities because they might tempt innocent men into sin like a succubus. No, I'm serious, that's the law and the reason why.

>>52154012
But you're not making any moral judgments about them as a person by pointing this out, this is just a random, unrelated fact.

>>52154012
Pro tip: "victims of the system" also "wanna get high."

>>52154012
>implying I'm not about to roll a fatty and pop on some vidya
Gonna have to try harder gramps, maybe if those drugs were regulated we wouldn't have to worry about those nice ladies.

>>52154023
If you were paying attention, you'd notice the argument was put forth that legal prostitutes would be less drug prone.

>>52154029
No shit.

>>52154032

That's neat.

>>52145675
neither

>>52153964
Can you think of any arguments AGAINST legalizing prostitution?

>>52154043
How much are they using? How does it differ from illegal prostitutes? Which drugs are they using? are they consuming them at the same rates?

>>52152718
>If prostitution hasn't brought about the fall of civilization in the last ten thousand years, I don't think it's going to do so anytime soon
That's because before the 1960s whores (read: unmarried women with children, distinct from widows) were purposefully barred from basically all the good things in society. A system where women have a direct financial incentive to sleep around and be a single mom is actively destructive to civilization. Notice the complete collapse of the black community from somewhat respectable people in the 1960s to semi-feral niggers today and their 75% illegitimacy rate. Notice how other groups in the US are slowly trending down that path. Really we need to repeal the 19th amendment and institute bastardy laws to keep this shit under control.

>>52152168
It's the Halo effect.
A Waitress with big tits makes you feel better disposed to the establishment.

>>52154032
Even if drugs were legalized, hair and piss tests would still be a thing.

>Why do people think I'm moralistically judging these disgusting degenerate crack whores who just want to sleep around and get high instead of staying faithful in monogamous relationships?

>>52154119
>back in the good old days women weren't promiscuous and blacks had daddies-
Dude.

I'm an MRA.

Men's issues are important to me. I care about them, and have a personal stake in such things. I happily call myself an MRA and don't think it should be a negatively-charged term to say one is interested in men's rights. We are, after all, half the population, surely we deserve rights too.

I tell you this so you know exactly where I'm coming from when I tell you you need to lay off the MRA koolaid.

>>52152168
Mate it works. I'm a pretty attractive dude, I waiter at a fancy, upmarket restaurant, and I wear a shirt a size too small and flirt like crazy with the least attractive women that walk in. gay guys too. Why? Because 9 times in 10 it leads straight to a much fatter tip.

If someone hasn't been flirted with for a very long time, whether because they're ugly, or married, or old, or awkward, they respond heavily to sexy smile and a few compliments delivered by someone whose appearance is in line with their tastes. It doesn't matter whether or not they're conscious of the fact that it won't lead anywhere, sex is an instinct that is hard to reign in with logic.

>>52154154
The problem has in fact gotten worse over the past 50 years. That's not kool aid, that's just data. Who the fuck said I was involved with MRA shit at all? You faggots are still bluepilled and playing the game by the enemy's rules.

>>52154116
Political backlash. Rooting out an entrenched black market industry. Creating entire departments and various frameworks to widely regulate, for the first time in recent memory, a very touchy activity that is intertwined with societal mores, health, huge profits, etc.

File: MRA doesn't work.jpg (342KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1000x664px

>>52154154
>I'm an MRA.
So when are you going to make the switch to MGTOW?

>>52154119
I suppose people with an actual pregnancy fetish might provide financial incentives to sleep around.

You really think that this fetish is common enough that prostitutes who are already pregnant don't take the gas out of that market? Birth control and abortions still work, you know.

>>52154217
What on earth makes you think a primary or even peripheral goal of MRA is to be noncontroversial? lol

>>52154217
I gotta admit, though MGTOW rhetoric and memes entertain me, the way the website advocates just tricking your pregnant girlfriend into a jacuzzi to trigger an abortion reminded me that these guys are way too fucking fanatical.

>>52154256
>What on earth makes you think a primary or even peripheral goal of MRA is to be noncontroversial?
The fact that they constantly try to be non-controversial regardless of the filth feminists fling in their direction? Also notice that MRA rarely, if ever, directly blame women. It's always something like "feminists" or "radical gender quota's" or "politicians" but never the women who back them. Once you acknowledge that last bit, you stop being an MRA and become a MGTOW.

In my eyes MRAs aren't bad, just well-intentioned fools who try to negotiate with a hungry tiger in a nudistcamp.

>>52153750
The mistake is believing that that's the norm and not rare occurrences.

I'll even go so far as to admit that trust is a coping mechanism that counteracts paranoia. That being said, you can't really control or predict someone deciding your head should be filled with bullets at any point in time, so would you prefer to believe most people don't want to kill you or that everyone wants to kill you?

>>52154306

Sounds just like gender flipped feminism.

>>52154306
I think you and I may be thinking of different MRA movements. But I guess it makes sense that you would paint them with various sins having left them yourself. (Not judging, by the way.)

Personally, I don't have a problem with women, or MRA, or your MGTOW camp. You just have to know how to handle women (individually, in groups, and as a whole, as well as your personal reaction to the above), the MRA have some good points sometimes, and MGTOW are making a choice they're entitled to make.

>>52154345
I don't think that they were arguing that betrayal is the norm, just that the risk of it is the norm.