Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

[Lady Scylla]

Depends on who's posting the OP. Chess can't be considered representative of a good advocate for feminism. Most of her threads are like this.

Being at bit optimistic are we?

...All of them are like this.

[Godular]

I'd been under the impression that many feminist-ish threads on NSG were actually well argued. Or would that more apply to specific feminist points that come up as an incidental in other discussions?

Depends on who's posting the OP. Chess can't be considered representative of a good advocate for feminism. Most of her threads are like this.

Oh I know that. Maybe I'm just surprised at how over the top the deviation is in this case. Sorta like a momentary shock at the fact that the sun is rising. "So early? Oh... daylight savings time."

[Southern Archipelago Bay]

NO WAY!

[Galloism]

NO WAY!

Thread title:

Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

Actual thread question:

Should women have the right to use their bodies as they see fit?

[Settrah]

It's probably been addressed, but I find it odd how the thread title specifies 'single' men. As if married men or those in relationships do have the right to exploit a women's body. It's almost as if it's recognised as consented surrogacy, unless the man isn't in a relationship, then he's a filthy evil rapist. It's that prestige and connotation of being in a relationship I don't get. Not just to do this topic necessarily, but in general.

[Waldriech]

Uhh....... No..

[Galloism]

Uhh....... No..

NO WAY!

Thread title:

Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

Actual thread question:

Should women have the right to use their bodies as they see fit?

[United Territories and States]

NO WAY!

Thread title:

Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

Actual thread question:

Should women have the right to use their bodies as they see fit?

Well that puts the wrench in Chem's logic.

[Sareva]

Being at bit optimistic are we?

...All of them are like this.

*Heaviest Southern drawl possible*
"Yah see kids, back in mah day, folks actually gabe yah an argument that made a 'lick of sense!"

[Neanderthaland]

Where 99% of the human race saw a rebooting of an entertaining dystopian film series, Third rate feminists saw a documentary of an average wednesday 21st century life.

I can imagine a woman with brightly coloured hair that is partially shaved, a terrible sense of fashion and horn rimmed glasses screaming "WITNESS ME" as she leaves her house.

They are awaited in Vaghalla.

[New haven america]

That's ok, you're just practicing the internalized misogyny that the patriarchy has taught you is correct.

Do not worry, once the time comes, radical feminism will free you of your disgusting patriarchal chains.

I'm genuinely curious what that will look like. I get your joking, but what does a "patriarchy free world" look like to someone like Chessmistress?

From what she's stated... weird. Mainly because she can be rather inconsistent in what she counts as "equal" or "patriarchy free".

For example, in her "Equal World", both men and women in heterosexual relationships (Dating, married, etc...) would both work medium to full time (30-40 hours). Sound's reasonable right? Well, let's say something comes up in which on person has to stay at home, now unless there's a very good reason, she believes the women should be the one to stay at home, no matter what pay she was making. Why? Because Chess doesn't know any women who would be happy with a "Housewife Husband" (Yes, she actually said that, I have the TG to prove it).

Also, in Chess's "Equal World", there wouldn't be very many heterosexual women, because apparently heterosexuality is a form of control that the patriarchy has created in order to subjugate women, so yeah...

[Hirota]

Wrong.
And there isn't just only me and Equaliaria, two different users, there are even some others, but they aren't comfortable posting here...

Several other hugboxes are available where you will not be called out for whatever beliefs other Third-rate feminists such as yourself chose to spout. Of course, if those opinions and ideas don't have the capacity to stand up to rational scrutiny from opposing perspectives then maybe those opinions and ideas are not rational.

[Ashmoria]

NO WAY!

Thread title:

Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

Actual thread question:

Should women have the right to use their bodies as they see fit?

the OP is so poorly written that I don't know if the question is:

should surrogacy be banned?

should there be some kind of guarantee of surrogacy for single men or gay couples so that they can reproduce even if it forces some women to surrogacy against their will?

should single men or gay male couples be banned from accessing surrogacy services?

the discussion of "right to reproduce" that starts the post suggests things that I don't think any government has proposed--that the right to reproduce is some kind of affirmative right that means governments will do whatever needs to be done to guarantee citizens the production of their own biological children.

[USS Monitor]

People turn to lots of things out of desperation and a need for income. It's still their choice which specific things they turn to.

It's not much of a choice though, is it? If you're driven to the point where that's the only available (legal) option then something else has gone wrong somewhere and it's not a reason to demonise surrogacy.

I wasn't demonizing surrogacy.

[USS Monitor]

Wrong.
And there isn't just only me and Equaliaria, two different users, there are even some others, but they aren't comfortable posting here...

Several other hugboxes are available where you will not be called out for whatever beliefs other Third-rate feminists such as yourself chose to spout. Of course, if those opinions and ideas don't have the capacity to stand up to rational scrutiny from opposing perspectives then maybe those opinions and ideas are not rational.

I'm not sure if they're more worried about their arguments standing up to scrutiny or their nations standing up to the Wrath of Mod. I suspect they would have trouble with both.

[Chessmistress]

Several other hugboxes are available where you will not be called out for whatever beliefs other Third-rate feminists such as yourself chose to spout. Of course, if those opinions and ideas don't have the capacity to stand up to rational scrutiny from opposing perspectives then maybe those opinions and ideas are not rational.

I'm not sure if they're more worried about their arguments standing up to scrutiny or their nations standing up to the Wrath of Mod. I suspect they would have trouble with both.

Not sure, but I suspect it's mainly, if not just only, the latter.
You're newly modded, so you cannot be aware how many times, especially during the first times, I sent telegrams urging someone to contain herself...Jadny's style is very watered down in comparison to her...I feel the need of a facepalm smilie, right now, why there isn't?

[Gauthier]

"You can't possibly disagree with me, you're just brainwashed, luckily I am here to save you all."

If that was my choice, I'd take a bullet with my morning tea.

The funny thing about this argument is the conflict over autonomy. Women can wholly support Feminism, and the advocacy against the Patriarchy - some are sex-negative and against prostitution, stripping, etc. Others are sex-positive - and they get branded by the sex-negs as having "internalized misogyny".

So, naturally, the argument comes up that if it's the woman's choice, then why should there be a problem? Women have bodily sovereignty, they can choose to have abortions, or consent to sex, so why not strip?

"It's internalised misogyny, you're being ruled by the patriarchy," cries the radfem. Well, if auch women aren't capable of exercising their autonomy, then that means the radfem movement is nothing more than a result of the patriarchy. You can't advocate for female autonomy, and then bitch when women use their autonomy for things you don't like. If anyone has "internalised misogyny" it's the radfems.

By their "logic" radfems themselves are trying to simulate traditional male power dynamics roles.

[Settrah]

If that was my choice, I'd take a bullet with my morning tea.

The funny thing about this argument is the conflict over autonomy. Women can wholly support Feminism, and the advocacy against the Patriarchy - some are sex-negative and against prostitution, stripping, etc. Others are sex-positive - and they get branded by the sex-negs as having "internalized misogyny".

So, naturally, the argument comes up that if it's the woman's choice, then why should there be a problem? Women have bodily sovereignty, they can choose to have abortions, or consent to sex, so why not strip?

"It's internalised misogyny, you're being ruled by the patriarchy," cries the radfem. Well, if auch women aren't capable of exercising their autonomy, then that means the radfem movement is nothing more than a result of the patriarchy. You can't advocate for female autonomy, and then bitch when women use their autonomy for things you don't like. If anyone has "internalised misogyny" it's the radfems.

By their "logic" radfems themselves are trying to simulate traditional male power dynamics roles.

Something something institutionalised misogyny something.

[Kravanica]

Thread title:

Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

Actual thread question:

Should women have the right to use their bodies as they see fit?

the OP is so poorly written that I don't know if the question is:

should surrogacy be banned?

should there be some kind of guarantee of surrogacy for single men or gay couples so that they can reproduce even if it forces some women to surrogacy against their will?

should single men or gay male couples be banned from accessing surrogacy services?

the discussion of "right to reproduce" that starts the post suggests things that I don't think any government has proposed--that the right to reproduce is some kind of affirmative right that means governments will do whatever needs to be done to guarantee citizens the production of their own biological children.

That is pretty much the question being asked. And the answer is: no.

[La Cosa Fedora]

Wait who exactly is supposed to be exploited here?

[Galloism]

Wait who exactly is supposed to be exploited here?

Women who consent to be a paid surrogate.

[La Cosa Fedora]

Wait who exactly is supposed to be exploited here?

Women who consent to be a paid surrogate.

Oh ok. And what do single men have to do with it?

[Galloism]

Women who consent to be a paid surrogate.

Oh ok. And what do single men have to do with it?

Apparently they paid women to be surrogates so they could have children, and getting paid is oppression.

[Settrah]

Women who consent to be a paid surrogate.

Oh ok. And what do single men have to do with it?

If you're a cisgender man, and you're not in a relationship, you're a rapist.

Apparently.

Chessmistress radical feminism 101

[Kravanica]

Oh ok. And what do single men have to do with it?

Apparently they paid women to be surrogates so they could have children, and getting paid is oppression.

Would it be preferable to not pay them and use them as baby-rearing slaves or something?