NationStates

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Thepeopl wrote:It wouldn't be a given. It would be comparable with going to a hair dresser, going to a masseuse.
It would be sex for sex sake, with the 99% certainty that it will not have emotional/ societal strings attached.

Just like going to a hairdresser will not influence your family how they view you.

In my view, incels just have ridiculously high expectations of sex/ relationship. It isn't they cannot get sex, it is that they cannot get the sex they want.

They just need to pay 50 euro more for the girlfriend experience

Reference? I tried to watch The Girlfriend Experience, but it rang all the wrong bells for me. Portraying prostitutes as predators, not my kind of feminism. If they make a movie of it I would sit through that, but sexploitation potboiler? No thanks.

The New California Republic wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
They just need to pay 50 euro more for the girlfriend experience

And yes of course that sort of thing does happen as far as escorts are concerned, where a man or woman will hire a male or female escort to go with them to the restaurant, the opera, etc to be with them in a social setting.

As a trophy "girlfriend".
As someone who supports outright prostitution being legal, I obviously can't object to escorts. I do feel a "rich people's problems" aversion though.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:And yes of course that sort of thing does happen as far as escorts are concerned, where a man or woman will hire a male or female escort to go with them to the restaurant, the opera, etc to be with them in a social setting.

As a trophy "girlfriend".
As someone who supports outright prostitution being legal, I obviously can't object to escorts. I do feel a "rich people's problems" aversion though.

Not always. Even middle and lower income people hire escorts for that kind of thing.

Plzen wrote:I will repeat my point that this discussion has been an excellent demonstration on why religion should have no place in pluralist society.

Let's just replace "society" with "public discussion" shall we? I think we have much more important matters than what religious beliefs other people hold. The freedom of conscience, I have always thought, cannot be infringed. And that's why all the debate is about freedom of speech. Let them think what they like, let them say it even, but when they stand up and assert their religion is right, and everyone else is wrong, let them be attacked from all sides. Let them be mocked and parodied and in every legal way dissuaded from bringing that shit.

Let the religious people convene however they like, with those of like belief. That's freedom of religion, and I for one have no problem with it. Given some time or thought, every evangelist impulse can be rendered into secular terms: a political plan of action, based in secular ethics, existent-partisan values, or even personal ethics of the person propounding. If positively religious people -- those with an urge to share their faith because they honestly believe it will make others happier -- can just discipline themselves to translate (or filter) their message into secular terms, then they will still be rewarded with converts.

Those who push religious values into the diverse public sphere, should simply be crushed. They are not serving their religion or their god, they are not serving religion generally, they are just polluting the public morals. In so far as they think they are engaging in debate about ethically-laden issues, they are at best wasting their time. Religions dictate morality. Humans find their own. An evangelist in a discussion about sex is as useful as a dirty brick in the lovers' bed.

The New California Republic wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
As a trophy "girlfriend".
As someone who supports outright prostitution being legal, I obviously can't object to escorts. I do feel a "rich people's problems" aversion though.

Not always. Even middle and lower income people hire escorts for that kind of thing.

Now you're asking me to feel sympathy for people who are poor because they waste their money on a rich-person's ego display. So I should be sorry for myself because I blew all my income on drugs when I was young? No. That was a mistake. Nobody is to blame but me.

Fuck that. Waste not, want not.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Not always. Even middle and lower income people hire escorts for that kind of thing.

Now you're asking me to feel sympathy for people who are poor because they waste their money on a rich-person's ego display. So I should be sorry for myself because I blew all my income on drugs when I was young? No. That was a mistake. Nobody is to blame but me.

Fuck that. Waste not, want not.

That isn't the only reason for hiring an escort.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
They just need to pay 50 euro more for the girlfriend experience

Reference? I tried to watch The Girlfriend Experience, but it rang all the wrong bells for me. Portraying prostitutes as predators, not my kind of feminism. If they make a movie of it I would sit through that, but sexploitation potboiler? No thanks.

It was a joke

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:-snip-

I find that "blame" is a very poor way of looking at social issues in general, personally.

If you think society would be better off without sex workers accompanying clients to social situations, you could point at clients who hire that service and say that they are bad people, or you can look at why they do it and seek to address those reasons.

One of those options will probably be more effective than the other at getting rid of the thing you don't like.