How many people have you "been with" ?

[Myasishchev]

I thought all the adult date sites were scams. I mean, I'm open to the possibility of being wrong. It's always cool when technology undermines the very foundation of a problem.

Right. A kind of fuck the charity case program. That ought to make all the incels feel a lot better about themselves.

The very fact that someone cared enough to have sex with a person should at least be touched. It's not a perfect romance, but it's still someone reaching out to you and helping you.

The very worst case scenario is a one night stand regret,* and those should be banished. There's definitely a bright side to look on.

Heck, I can think of half a dozen people I'd be better off having been pity fucked by. (Diagram that sentence!) And perhaps the same number I ought to have pity fucked, if they could understand the difference between that and a solid relationship.

*Ok, the very worst case scenario is a foul disease. But for the sake of clarity, let's ignore the STD issue, assume everyone is safe and well-prepared.

 

[Shaw]

In any event, this is where altruism comes in. Sometimes you've gotta take one for the team called humanity.

Wow... that is just wrong on so many levels.

People who look at women this way really scare me. Most of the people in my life that matter most to me are women, and the thought that they have to deal with such dehumanization from people that they might encounter is very disturbing.

Men who don't realize that women offer so much more than sex don't deserve women or sex.

Fortunately, I think most women can see guys like that coming from a mile away.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I thought all the adult date sites were scams. I mean, I'm open to the possibility of being wrong. It's always cool when technology undermines the very foundation of a problem.

Right. A kind of fuck the charity case program. That ought to make all the incels feel a lot better about themselves.

The very fact that someone cared enough to have sex with a person should at least be touched. It's not a perfect romance, but it's still someone reaching out to you and helping you.

That's just so touching, knowing someone cares enough about humanity to fuck you. That would warm anyone's cock(les).

 

[Kestra]

The very worst case scenario is a one night stand regret,* and those should be banished. There's definitely a bright side to look on.

... what? What is this a worst case scenario in, and how do you propose people "banish" it? Are you talking about banishing one-night stands, or regretting them?

 

[Myasishchev]

^Banishment of the regrets, not the one-night stands.

That's just so touching, knowing someone cares enough about humanity to fuck you. That would warm anyone's cock(les).

Love, sister, is just a kiss away. At least, that's what the Stones said. You can hardly believe them.

But seriously, why is charity treated so different in the sexual arena than it is in any other sphere of human activity?

I know there are folks who spit on charity of all kinds, but I assume this isn't the case here?

People who look at women this way really scare me. Most of the people in my life that matter most to me are women, and the thought that they have to deal with such dehumanization from people that they might encounter is very disturbing.

1. Jokey hyperbole. 2. The principle of altruism should apply equally to men. E.g., abusing a woman's trust just to get laid isn't a particularly nice thing to do, I think we agree. 3. If you think an interest in someone as a sexual partner is dehumanizing, that's your hang-up, pal. It's this very attitude which generates half of the awkwardness in the world. The other half is generated by our digestive system. You do the math. 4. People are not sexual objects, obviously, because no human's an object, but they are sexual subjects. Inherent in this is that they are potential recipients of sexual interest from other sexual beings, and all I'm saying is that they (men or women) should react with kindness and justice, as opposed to arrogance or obscurantism. And that the entire process should be as open and transparent as possible.

Observe. However cartoonish, this exchange could take place in a logically possible world:

"Say," he wondered sheepishly, not quite able to make eye contact, "would you like to have sex sometime?"
"No," she replied immediately and firmly, but with a hint of regret that this might hurt him, "but thank you."
"Oh, well. Sorry."
"Better luck next time!" she told him hopefully.
"Thanks!" He added, "Hey--you too!", because a sense of humor is always important.

What a monstrous planet that would be.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Why do you reduce sex to commodity?

 

[Kestra]

^Banishment of the regrets, not the one-night stands.

That's just so touching, knowing someone cares enough about humanity to fuck you. That would warm anyone's cock(les).

Love, sister, is just a kiss away.

But seriously, why is charity treated so different in the sexual arena than it is in any other sphere of human activity?

I know there are folks who spit on charity of all kinds, but I assume this isn't the case here?

You can't banish regret, it's how someone feels about a situation.

And most charity involves donating time or money, not physical intimate relations with someone. There's a substantial difference.

 

[Amaris]

There is a big difference, I agree. I don't know of any incel who just wants sex out of some kind of guilt. It's about human contact, but it needs to be reciprocal. The biggest barrier for most incels is that they consider themselves somehow "unqualified" to have sex, as if they're just supposed to linger in sexual limbo forever because they're not worthy to discover what might await them on the other side.

 

[Goji]

Men who don't realize that women offer so much more than sex don't deserve women or sex.

Fortunately, I think most women can see guys like that coming from a mile away.

Yes. A lot of them then immediately go and have sex with them.

And then bitch to me about it.

 

[Myasishchev]

Why do you reduce sex to commodity?

I don't recall doing that. Sex is an activity. Like golf, except not dreadfully boring.

It can be commodified, but as we've discussed, and I think we agreed, that it's at best a band-aid on gunshot wound.

Charity is a sort of anti-commodification, in that it's actively opposed against a purely self-interested mindset. That is, it's not a purely economic activity, unless you consider compassion or pride over a good deed an economic value, which I suppose is a valid interpretation.

You can't banish regret, it's how someone feels about a situation.

Sure you can. It really depends upon your mindset going in. A pre-banishment. If a guy knows he's going to regret it, why is he asking people to have sex with him? That's silly, and completely on him.

And most charity involves donating time or money, not physical intimate relations with someone. There's a substantial difference.

Valid point. But the nature of the problem dictates the response. If the problem is lack of sex, or love, or human contact, the charitable response is sex, love, or human contact, I'd say, in the same way that the charitable response to the lack of food and medical supplies in Haiti dictated sending food and medical supplies to Haiti. (There's a funny bureaucratic mix-up joke in there somewhere.)

 

[Kestra]

You can't banish regret, it's how someone feels about a situation.

Sure you can. It really depends upon your mindset going in. A pre-banishment. If a guy knows he's going to regret it, why is he asking people to have sex with him? That's silly, and completely on him.

People are less likely to do something that they know they will regret. I doubt that most people who doubt one-night stands knew that they would feel that way at the time of the actual encounter.

And most charity involves donating time or money, not physical intimate relations with someone. There's a substantial difference.

Valid point. But the nature of the problem dictates the response. If the problem is lack of sex, or love, or human contact, the charitable response is sex, love, or human contact, I'd say, in the same way that the charitable response to the lack of food and medical supplies in Haiti dictated sending food and medical supplies to Haiti. (There's a funny bureaucratic mix-up joke in there somewhere.)

Well the problem in this case is not viewed as an immediate basic or survival need such as cases where food, water, medical treatment are needed. It also requires a very different cost to the individual and is one that not many are willing to pay.

I also don't really see it as effective, or necessary myself.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

There is a big difference, I agree. I don't know of any incel who just wants sex out of some kind of guilt. It's about human contact, but it needs to be reciprocal. The biggest barrier for most incels is that they consider themselves somehow "unqualified" to have sex, as if they're just supposed to linger in sexual limbo forever because they're not worthy to discover what might await them on the other side.

What's on the other side is usually pretty much the same minus some variable quantity of money.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Valid point. But the nature of the problem dictates the response. If the problem is lack of sex, or love, or human contact, the charitable response is sex, love, or human contact, I'd say, in the same way that the charitable response to the lack of food and medical supplies in Haiti dictated sending food and medical supplies to Haiti. (There's a funny bureaucratic mix-up joke in there somewhere.)

I really can't take you seriously. Equating the need for sex to the need for food and medical supplies in Haiti?

 

[SiorX]

Why do you reduce sex to commodity?

I don't recall doing that. Sex is an activity. Like golf, except not dreadfully boring.

It can be commodified, but as we've discussed, and I think we agreed, that it's at best a band-aid on gunshot wound.

Reading through the thread, I think that the crux of your argument is based on a model of sex as a commodity. Most of the solutions you are putting forward are shortcuts, designed to get something the subject wants (sex) without having to deal with the complexities of social interaction with other people. The trouble is, negotiation and interaction aren't barriers to sex, nor are they preliminary levels that you need to clear in order to get to sex. They're an inextricable part of complex interpersonal human interactions of which sex is also a facet.

Consider up-thread where you handwaved STDs. I understand your point there - it was about simplifying the argument. But it doesn't work. And the reason it doesn't work is the same reason I don't think your entire model works. You can't magically make it so we can assume everyone is healthy and protected. You can't eliminate the need for communication in sex, or the fallout from poor communication.

The charity-sex idea just reinforces a lot of the dodgy memes about sex in general, tbh. It's dehumanising in presenting sex as the goal and the person to whose genitals you want access as some sort of facilitator. The trick is not to see other people as gatekeepers one needs to bribe, outwit, or guilt into letting you get the sex.

Not getting sex isn't like not getting food or not having enough money to be able to afford to survive in the society in which you live. It's not a finite resource which can be hoarded. It doesn't rely upon a distribution system which can be monopolised or broken. You can't point to a specific, unjust part of the system which is denying certain demographics sex. That's not how it works.

You're trying to cut out the part of sex that involves dealing with other people as individuals. But that's misguided, because sex is all about an interaction with another person one on one (or people, n on n).

 

[Shaw]

2. The principle of altruism should apply equally to men...

Really?

So you are saying that you'd be willing (in the name of altruism) to have sex with a man. That is, for charity sake, you'd take one for the team?

Wow.

 

[Scout101]

2. The principle of altruism should apply equally to men...

Really?

So you are saying that you'd be willing (in the name of altruism) to have sex with a man. That is, for charity sake, you'd take one for the team?

Wow.

Of course not. Not would he be interested in anyone unattractive to him (physically, socially, mentally, etc). Whole premise seems to be about getting what HE wants (and other "loveshy" people) without having to put in any effort, get to know the other person, or have to fear someone saying no.

Even if you live in a society where it's the norm to put out a horga'hn next to you at the bus stop if you give off dork/weirdo vibes and/or are ugly you are still going to get rejected. For a lot of people this is not going to be Super Sex Funland regardless.

It's still more transparent than going through elaborate motions, then getting rejected. In that manner, it's more efficient.

In any event, this is where altruism comes in. Sometimes you've gotta take one for the team called humanity.

I'm sorry, could quote any one of your posts, but your whole position seems insane. At the very least, of benefit to a small minority, without taking into consideration (and to the detriment of) everyone else in the equation.

Only really works if you don't consider that the women involved have any say in who they sleep with, or could possibly have their own standards. Standards that would change with every individual woman. Seems like in a lot of these stories, the guy has really high standards, and then gets pissed when it turns out that OTHER people also have standards that they are applying. why is that?

A lot seems to be about convenience as well, not having to put in the EFFORT to get to know a woman before having a chance to sleep with her. Fine if you just consider her a mindless fucktoy, but not so good if you consider her a person. Sure you've got problems, or are shy, but why does SOCIETY owe you sex? God forbid you have to TALK to another person before getting rewarded with sex. You want the reward, but want to see the effort go to zero, as well as removing the ability to decide from the other person. Not how it works.

And it's not a recent thing, competition for mates has been around as long as the species. Stronger, faster, smarter, more attractive, etc has always been the criteria. If anything, things like the Internet has made things EASIER for people like yourself, not harder. Only criteria for saying it's gotten worse is that now it's affecting YOU, IMO.

 

[Myasishchev]

Really?

So you are saying that you'd be willing (in the name of altruism) to have sex with a man. That is, for charity sake, you'd take one for the team?

Wow.

Generally I would expect people to keep within their own orientations. The more obvious analogy would be a weird or unattractive woman.

That said, giving a dude a blowjob isn't the end of the damn world, and there are scenarios I can imagine where it would be humane to do so.

Of course not. Not would he be interested in anyone unattractive to him (physically, socially, mentally, etc). Whole premise seems to be about getting what HE wants (and other "loveshy" people) without having to put in any effort, get to know the other person, or have to fear someone saying no.

Now, that's assuming quite a bit. I'd happily have sex with unattractive women (I admit to being far less enamored of the idea of having sex with men, attractive or otherwise, but that's really an entirely different issue; sexual orientation is not a choice). Unhappily, I'm not allowed to right now. The principle of ownership in monogamy is one of the keystone problems in the current regime, but try telling her that.

Only really works if you don't consider that the women involved have any say in who they sleep with, or could possibly have their own standards. Standards that would change with every individual woman. Seems like in a lot of these stories, the guy has really high standards, and then gets pissed when it turns out that OTHER people also have standards that they are applying. why is that?

I'm really disturbed by how so many folks want to turn this into a male-female thing. I wouldn't expect the numbers are equal, but women seem to be affected by lack of access to physical intimacy as well.

A lot seems to be about convenience as well, not having to put in the EFFORT to get to know a woman before having a chance to sleep with her. Fine if you just consider her a mindless fucktoy, but not so good if you consider her a person. Sure you've got problems, or are shy, but why does SOCIETY owe you sex? God forbid you have to TALK to another person before getting rewarded with sex. You want the reward, but want to see the effort go to zero, as well as removing the ability to decide from the other person. Not how it works.

I'm not sure at what point I introduced physical coercion into the equation, so consequently I'm not very sure where you've gotten the idea that the ability to decide could be removed from anyone.

All I believe I've ever claimed is that people would be happier with more sex, and outlined a draft moral framework that might lead to more sex, and more varied sex, for everybody.

Anyway, I like talking to people.

Reading through the thread, I think that the crux of your argument is based on a model of sex as a commodity. Most of the solutions you are putting forward are shortcuts, designed to get something the subject wants (sex) without having to deal with the complexities of social interaction with other people. The trouble is, negotiation and interaction aren't barriers to sex, nor are they preliminary levels that you need to clear in order to get to sex. They're an inextricable part of complex interpersonal human interactions of which sex is also a facet.

I'm not denying that's it's one thread of a much broader tapestry.

Consider up-thread where you handwaved STDs. I understand your point there - it was about simplifying the argument. But it doesn't work. And the reason it doesn't work is the same reason I don't think your entire model works. You can't magically make it so we can assume everyone is healthy and protected. You can't eliminate the need for communication in sex, or the fallout from poor communication.

That's an interesting point. I don't think I really agree that lessening communication barriers dehumanizes social interaction. By simplifying or abandoning rules of etiquette that don't serve a useful channeling or restraining purpose, I think the result would purer and less awkward communication. Forgetting any moral injunction to put out for the sake of niceness, I still don't see how honesty about sexual desires could cause harm.

The charity-sex idea just reinforces a lot of the dodgy memes about sex in general, tbh. It's dehumanising in presenting sex as the goal and the person to whose genitals you want access as some sort of facilitator. The trick is not to see other people as gatekeepers one needs to bribe, outwit, or guilt into letting you get the sex.

Hey, if the Achaeans had tried guilt, it might not have taken Agamemnon ten years.

I just don't get how approaching sex as a goal is dehumanizing. As long as it's tempered by appreciation of the other person as a person, then, at worst, it might be impersonal. These are not at all the same thing. This is not to say that a sex-at-all-costs approach, as embraced by seduction community douchebags, is not dehumanizing. Although, my admittedly limited impression of that group is that they're graduated incels who've honed their skills and turned their frustration into something to be despised.

That's one possible alternative to a reciprocal kindness-driven regime: vengeance-seeking quasi-fratboys.

Not getting sex isn't like not getting food or not having enough money to be able to afford to survive in the society in which you live.

No, but it is generally considered a human need. I think it's in that pyramid.

It's not a finite resource which can be hoarded.

On this point, I very, very much agree. All the more reason to sweep away institutions which make it scarcer than, it seems, is necessary.

It doesn't rely upon a distribution system which can be monopolised or broken. You can't point to a specific, unjust part of the system which is denying certain demographics sex.

But I have! 47% of it. And massive amounts of anecdotal evidence.

That's not how it works.

You're trying to cut out the part of sex that involves dealing with other people as individuals. But that's misguided, because sex is all about an interaction with another person one on one (or people, n on n).

Yes, but interactions with honesty and kindness are likelier to be healthier and more fulfilling than interactions based on sublimated desires and veiled self-interest.

...you know, I had no idea this sort of idea was really that out there. Really interesting to read the reactions.

 

[Kestra]

Unhappily, I'm not allowed to right now. The principle of ownership in monogamy is one of the keystone problems in the current regime, but try telling her that.

Haha, what? You say monogamy is one of the keystone problems but you participate in it?

 

[T'Girl]

Haven't you heard of adult date sites? You've got what you want right there.

I thought all the adult date sites were scams. I mean, I'm open to the possibility of being wrong. It's always cool when technology undermines the very foundation of a problem.

I had a fair amount of luck with a few dating sites (alt.com, outpersonals.com and others) three to five years ago,, the encounters weren't all gems -- way it goes. But the same problem exists for some people, if you a truly icky person, you still not going to attract attention or ultimately sex. If you're too shy to show up at the meeting place, no sex. If you lack to minimal social graces to interact with a potential date (one-time or long-term) over the internet, no sex again.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

To change the mood a little
I've been posing down the pub
On seeing my reflection
I'm looking slightly rough
I fancy this, I fancy that
I want to be so flash
I give a little muscle
And I spend a little cash
But all I get is bitter and a nasty little rash
And by the time I'm sober
I've forgotten what I've had
And everybody tells me that it's cool to be a cat
Cool for cats