#MeToo Hysteria Is A Pretext For Women To Take Power And Money Away From Men - Page 50 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14954751
Human trafficking will also not exist without kidnapping, violence and psychological manipulation. That line of argument does not work Skinster.

Look I get that prostitution leads to negative impact on people, that it can ruin peoples lives. That also a person might get into it without knowing fully the negative consequences of it. But that is how people usually get into negative situations. It is called bad decisions.
#14954756
QatzelOk wrote:
If your own sister or mother starts having to receive sex from unattractive men in order to put food on the table


So if you would have this possibility for your mother or sister, would you step in to help them so that it was not necessary? Would you give them the money to live on? Take an extra job to support them? Invite them to live in your apartment?

And here we see the liberal moving to support personal responsibility because it leads to more sex acts. This is the only time this particular tribe takes this position and it is truly a sight to behold.


Of course your first line is just idiotic.

I just love to see the so-called conservatives whining about personal responsibility but completely ignoring any personal responsibility to care for their fellow man/woman. Personal responsibility for them means that people should be responsible for their own success or failure and that they have no right to expect help from others.

I love the Christians who build mega-churches without a single bed for the homeless. Or so-called conservatives who believe that the government should spend a trillion dollars on the military to protect them from North Korea or Russia and not a cent to protect them from illness or economic disaster.

Really. They are that stupid.

And thanks to Skinster we are still supposed to believe that people who believe that fixing prostitution does not include jailing them or their customers is tantamount to raping children. Really silly.
#14954757
Sell your wrinkly ass Drlee and then you might be able to speak on this issue. In the meantime, I'll listen to prostituted women, not johns and their supporters (also johns but too coy to say).

Albert wrote:Human trafficking will also not exist without kidnapping, violence and psychological manipulation.


Yeah, those things are bad too. :D
#14954841
Drlee wrote:I love the Christians who build mega-churches without a single bed for the homeless.


??

Don't see quite how that would matter. The same church might be giving away millions of dollars to charitable causes, operating it's own charity, maybe even it's own homeless shelter or soup kitchen.

I guess you are talking about hypocrisy, and yes it exists in these churches. But it's hard to gauge. Some Churches are better than others, even Protestant Megachurches.
#14954870
Females and males have always been sexually abused against their will and always will be. Whether or not you legalize prostitution will not change that. It may alter the statistics a little but there are too many differences between rape and sex for one to dramatically effect the other.
#14955044
I believe indulgence in prostitution is wrong morally, this includes "Johns" as well equally. Ideally sex outside marriage is wrong, that is before and after marriage, we have all but forgotten this principle since we decided to go down "the path" of brighter future and forgo our Christian heritage and the wisdom with it. (Be that path expressed through communism, liberal atheism or fascism. 19-20th centuries in Europe has been marked in rebellion of ancient wisdom, as we have become arrogant thinking that we can solve issues that we have no answers to.)

Hence in our modern society that encourage promiscuity at every corner of our lives it is so easy for women and men to fall pray to prostitution. We have hookup culture these days that is not that far from life of prostitution itself. So the step into that unfortunate path is all that easy to make. In it people further loose that sense what it is to live a simple family life, as all that sense of womanhood and manhood could be lost.
#14955046
Apparently, puritanism is alive and well with people like @Albert. :roll:

In many countries, sex isn't viewed the same was as in the USA, in many countries. America, despite its glorification of violence, is almost puritanical, when it comes to sex. Many other cultures don't view sex as this special thing, but as a natural human thing that people who like each other, do. Europeans are far more sexually uninhibited than Americans, from my experiences/observations.

Christian morality is part of the reason for all that pedophilia and child molestation in the Church. Talking about Christian is only relative in that it's a sexually repressive religion, except when it comes to propagation of more Christians, that is.

Moral judgments against people who engage in/use prostitution, are part of the problem.

Albert wrote:Hence in our modern society that encourage promiscuity at every corner of our lives it is so easy for women and men to fall pray to prostitution. We have hookup culture these days that is not that far from life of prostitution itself. So the step into that unfortunate path is all that easy to make. In it people further loose that sense what it is to live a simple family life, as all that sense of womanhood and manhood could be lost.
Rubbish. Incels and MGTOWs think this way, because they're being unsuccessful in their relationships/socializing with the opposite sex.

No one is encouraging promiscuity. "Hookups" are nothing new. One-night stands are as old as time itself. People having sex happens all the time. Deluding yourself into thinking this isn't or hasn't been the case, is sheer silliness.

Your family life is up to you, not to society at large. Your sense of manhood and womanhood is up to you and isn't reliant on society to tell you if you're a man/woman, or not. If you have a problem with this, then that's a problem you, personally, need to deal with.

Thumbs up if your manhood is intact... :up: :up:
#14955074
Godstud wrote:Apparently, puritanism is alive and well with people like @Albert. :roll:

In many countries, sex isn't viewed the same was as in the USA, in many countries. America, despite its glorification of violence, is almost puritanical, when it comes to sex. Many other cultures don't view sex as this special thing, but as a natural human thing that people who like each other, do. Europeans are far more sexually uninhibited than Americans, from my experiences/observations.

Christian morality is part of the reason for all that pedophilia and child molestation in the Church. Talking about Christian is only relative in that it's a sexually repressive religion, except when it comes to propagation of more Christians, that is.

Moral judgments against people who engage in/use prostitution, are part of the problem.
It differs in Europe from people to people, my grandparents on my father's side lived together until the end. I suspect they were actually secretly Christian looking back now. They could not be open about it because of Communism oppression but the way they lived their life and things they had said to me now I find were verses from the bible to guide me in my life. On top of that my grandfather's relatives were persecuted by the Communist so it leaves me to suspect they might had been actually Whites during the Civil War. It kind of all fell into place for me, funny enough they never spoke about these things to me.

My parents' generation, thanks to communism, a lot of people had lost these values and had a much different life. I understand there is this whole perception of Europe as "sexually open" place it is not exactly so. Especially now since Christianity is not oppressed in eastern Europe any longer things are changing to ways of old. Western Europe I see has a different experience, as there the values of old are repressed but in different ways. In more subtle way and less obviously.

Christianity is not sexually repressive religion, all it asks is to respect marriage. Jesus never taught anything else. He never said to preserve virginity or anything else.

And sex is a special thing, that is how we beget our sons and daughters, how can that not be special and wonderful?

I do agree there is a difference in culture of approaching sex then North America, in Europe there is less sensationalism and aggrandizement that revolves around sexuality but it does not mean people there are all promiscuous.
#14955077
Albert wrote:And sex is a special thing, that is how we beget our sons and daughters, how can that not be special and wonderful?
It's a simply biological function. Get over it. Sure it's wonderful, but it's not that special. You don't need to have fucking kids to enjoy it, either.

Marrying someone you never had sex would be the ultimate in stupidity.

Your ideas about promiscuity are hilarious, and inaccurate. Just because less people are getting married doesn't mean that it's a problem. There could have economic reasons for that, as people are less likely to have a good income to support a family.

Evidence is to the contrary, actually:
'Tinder generation' turns its back on sex, as millennials are less likely to be promiscuous than their parents' generation
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/0 ... ck-on-sex/

Interesting....
What Every Generation Gets Wrong About Sex
Similarly, the sex lives of today’s teenagers and twentysomethings are not all that different from those of their Gen Xer and Boomer parents. A study published in The Journal of Sex Research this year found that although young people today are more likely to have sex with a casual date, stranger or friend than their counterparts 30 years ago were, they do not have any more sexual partners — or for that matter, more sex — than their parents did.
http://time.com/3611781/sexual-revolution-revisited/

What Everyone’s Getting Wrong About the Ivy League Hookup Culture
The sex lives of most college students aren't all that different from those of their parents or grandparents
http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/23/what-e ... p-culture/
#14955078
Godstud wrote:Marrying someone you never had sex would be the ultimate in stupidity.


But marrying someone partly because you had sex with them and liked it is even more stupid.

Got to have somekind of balance. If you find a soul mate with sex, fine have a good life together and lots of children. If you find one without (like maybe over a cup of coffee or movie dates), fine...

Just don't get married too quickly.
#14955081
colliric wrote:But marrying someone partly because you had sex with them and liked it is even more stupid.

Got to have somekind of balance. If you find a soul mate with sex, fine have a good life together and lots of children. If you find one without (like maybe over a cup of coffee or movie dates), fine...

Just don't get married too quickly.
The trouble with having sex before marriage is you can get a girl pregnant. Then you might end up with someone who you are not compatible with, thus leading to unhappy marriage and perhaps divorce.

This is why I see traditionally having intimacy before marriage was discouraged in the past. To make sure that partners will be compatible with one another and prepared for family responsibilities. Most importantly this also secured best chances of good upbringing for the children and happy family life.
#14955085
Albert wrote:The trouble with having sex before marriage is you can get a girl pregnant.
Yes, if you don't practice good birth control, this can happen. That's simply a biological fact.

Albert wrote:Then you might end up with someone who you are not compatible with, thus leading to unhappy marriage and perhaps divorce.
That's why you should be thinking a little bit before having sex. There is, however, no guarantee, and someone you might be perfectly compatible with now, might not be compatible in the future.

Albert wrote:This is why I see traditionally having intimacy before marriage was discouraged in the past.
While it might have been discouraged, it certainly happened. No amount of reminiscing about a time you didn't grow up in is going to change things, and you'd likely have the same problems were you there.

Albert wrote:To make sure that the partners will be compatible and prepared. Most importantly this also secured best chances of good upbringing for the children.
As I said above, you cannot guarantee compatibility, or preparation for something they haven't experienced before. You can only really hope for the best.
#14955093
Well, there were no "social security numbers" and so-on. So there was no registering as married with the local government for taxation purposes. Communities outside of cities were smaller and more closely knit, with taxation being levied in a regional sense (such as upon an entire village at once) and it would be up to the local village leaders to organize that, usually in conjunction with the local ruling aristocrats. People in cities, where the population was much larger, have been governed and taxed in widely different ways through history and depending on location.

So there is probably no single middle ages marriage law. Instead, if two people agreed that they were married and those who knew them were aware of this (and accepted it...) you could say that they were married. Large ceremonies were more for people in cities and upper class people and part of their purpose was so that people would know and understand that they are married to each other. Marriage as a legal status was probably instituted largely for taxation and divorce law purposes. Even more simply, people like to officiate things.

Marriage is also heavily associated with upper class people and only became common when such people began to outnumber lower class people. So aristocrats who had to track their bloodlines were documenting marriage, not for taxation purposely originally but for bloodline purposes, whereas people who (depending on country) may have not even had a last name had no reason or, probably, capability to track their marriages as most of them were illiterate.

This is also one of the nuances of Romeo & Juliet, they are young upper class people who should get married formally and in a socially acceptable way, but they want to get quasi-married like commoners which further offends their families.
#14955100
AFAIK wrote:Godstud wrote: Marrying someone you never had sex would be the ultimate in stupidity.
colliric wrote: But marrying someone partly because you had sex with them and liked it is even more stupid.

So all marriage is stupid in your view?


Romance is stupid and dangerous in general(especially to your mental health!)... But also one of the greatest most beautiful things God invented.... We need romance and marriage and kids. We just plain need to be loved and wanted.

But yeah it is risky and dumb sometimes.
#14955161
@colliric said...
We just plain need to be loved and wanted.


There you go. It is not really about sex at all. That is why some of those sexual encounters we regret later because they weren’t about being loved and wanted.
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 91

No one is more manly than me. We know there is […]

https://youtu.be/7w9NIPYrxRQ Standard dehumaniz[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Not really. If you have a dictator on one side in[…]

A long war with a lot of mistakes. Listen to thi[…]