Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny MRA oppressed men pussy cartel sex whores

Actual discussion taking place on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit

Just another day on r/mensrights, dealing with the terrible injustices facing men today in a thoughtful and compassionate way.

414 replies on “Actual discussion taking place on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit”

“If both parties are willingly participating, what possible power imbalances could arise between an 18 year old prostitute and a 45 year old customer that wouldn’t arise if we changed the age of the prostitute to 21?”

A better question would be, why are 21 year old sex workers too old for your liking? Why do you need to have sex workers younger than that available to you?

A better question would be, why are 21 year old sex workers too old for your liking? Why do you need to have sex workers younger than that available to you?

Because Freedom! And somehow extensively trained 18 year old soldiers should be considered the same as sex workers. (Who may not have any training at all)

Well, they do have something in common – in both cases it’s quite possible that there may be people attempting to kill them while they’re working.

Funny how guys like this always ignore the stats that show how dangerous a profession sex work is.

(I actually do think that we might want to consider raising the age at which people can join the armed forces too, but that’s a separate argument. Similar thought process though – decision making abilities still aren’t fully developed at 18, people may not fully comprehend all the consequences of their decision for that reason.)

@ Pecunium

It is funny when Brandon gets all “how dare you do that thing that I do, that I consider OK when I do it”.

I don’t like the idea of requiring anyone to be armed, but if sex work was legalized then one advantage would be that we could build in a provision that all sex workers are automatically issued a concealed carry permit. Whether or not they choose to use it should of course be up to the individual, but the option should be available.

Cassandra: I’m not sure about the armed issue. It’s one more thing I can see leading to abuse of sex workers. The nature of the business is such that any weapon they have is going to be in a fairly limited set of locations (unless s/he wants to be taking it off in the sight of the customer), and that makes it being taken away a lot more likely.

Add the, almost certain, times when s/he isn’t able to get to the weapon, and it’s a recipe for (at least occasional) disaster.

I can see that, which is why I think requiring it doesn’t make sense. I think anyone in that business who wants to carry a gun should be allowed to do so, though.

@Viscaria: I never made any claim about women that do or do not find younger men more attractive than older men.

@Hellkell: That is nice that YOU don’t take into consideration net worth. But this isn’t just about YOU. The point is about the general female population and if more women value net worth over the women that don’t. Clearly you are in the “it doesn’t matter” category. However, the opposite of you are those gold diggers that go on Daytime TV saying “I was just with him because he bought me stuff”.

@Pecunium: What exactly do relationships have to do with this? This is about what physically attracts men. There is a difference between basic attraction and starting a relationship. You often can’t have a relationship without some form of attraction, but you can be attracted to people without being in a relationship with them.

Also, there are all sorts of relationships. One can have a strictly sexual relationship with someone or one can have a deep, meaningful marriage with someone.

Why do I have to relate to a 18 year old prostitute for her to have sex with me?
Why do I have to relate to a 45 year old who I am only having a sexual relationship with?
Why do I have to relate in a more deep and meaningful way to a 18 year old girl who I might only relate to her in a shallow, pop-culture-y kind of way?

In fact the only way your example works is in basically one relationship type: Long term, sexual relationships.

No where did I say all women were “shallow bints” that only cared about a man’s wallet. But it is foolish, stupid and naive to think that no woman is like that.

The two men aren’t the same…they have different net worth’s.

@Cassandra: A lot of women value stability and safety…correct? Well those things often require money to do it. I am not saying that women get wet because some dude has an Amex Super-Duper Gold Platinum Card with Concierge Service. It’s that a lot of women equate more money with more safety and stability.

@Kendra: And there are 16 year olds that are more mature than 45 year olds. The point is that at 18 you are given the majority of the rights, privileges and obligations of being an adult. Two exceptions off the top of my head are drinking and handgun conceal carry laws in some states.

Quoting MADD as a reliable source is laughable. Of course they are going to say that increasing the drinking age to 21 saved lives. If it didn’t, then they might become another useless lobbying group. What next? Are you going to ask the US Chamber of Commerce, “Is business good?”

Sex work is dangerous because it is illegal and prostitutes often don’t have legal protection. Having it be illegal also increases the risks of sexual coercion. Making it legal will fix far more of those problems than debating what age one can become a sex worker. A basic comparison is illegal street walking in any city vs the Bunny Ranch in Nevada. I would bet that the girls at the Bunny Ranch (even the 18yo) are safer, happier and healthier than the girls (even the 21yo) prostituting in places where it is illegal.

Personally, I don’t give a crap if the age stays at 18 or 21. But if we are going to have 21 be the age one can drink, engage in sex work, own a handgun, and a few others. Then we need to accept that the US sees 21 as the age of majority and move voting, conscription, entering into contracts…and all the other rights and obligations 18 year olds get currently to 21. There should only be one threshold to cross to becoming an adult.

This of course would mean that you couldn’t get married till you turned 21. Increasing the age one can get married might remove those power imbalances too. So let’s all support increasing the age to get married to 21!

@Elizabeth: I am always in favor of women owning firearms. They are a great equalizer.

So Brandon can post regularly again? And here we wer finejfjky7y6u6u
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
fffjdfilkmaikl.hgyj
k
kk
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Oh, sorry. Fell asleep on my keyboard. Well, good night everyone. I shall see you on the morrow.

This obsession that you have with women supposedly being obsessed with wanting safety and security from a man is very odd, Brandon. Obviously you like this idea because that’s what you think you have to offer so it’s flattering to think it’s what most women want, but at some point you’re going to have to accept that women are individual people who each have their own preferences. Right now you sound like something out of the 1950s – I’m half expecing you to burst into a verse of Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend any moment.

Nice attempt at avoiding the issue of women having actual libidos, though.

@Viscaria: I never made any claim about women that do or do not find younger men more attractive than older men.

No, but you talked a lot about older men and their standards and aren’t we all jealous that we’re not young hotties anymore and then you talked about how net worth is the male equivalent without at any time considering that maybe those older men might not be able to get those younger women for the same reason they don’t want to date women 20 years older than me and why am I talking to the Brandon? I’m just going to not talk to the Brandon.

So, Brandon, do you want to raise the driving age to eighteen or lower the age of getting all rights to sixteen?

Do you want to raise the age you can see R rated movies alone to eighteen or lower the age of getting all rights to seventeen?

Do you want to raise the age you can post on the Internet without parental consent to eighteen, or lower the age of getting all rights to thirteen?

@Cassandra: Obsessed? Hardly. Also, safety and stability don’t have to come from a man, society in general can be used in lieu of the man. Also, I never said that it was a trait ALL women share. But again, it is foolish to think that NO women value safety, security or stability from men or society at large.

Yes, women have libidos. They also like to have sex. News at 11!

Lastly…how do you half expect something?

@Viscaria: Why are you looking at this so black and white? Do some women value net worth? Yes. Do some women value looks? Yes. Do some women value both net worth and looks? Yes.

@Ozy: Those are some pretty flimsy questions.

1) Most states have restrictions on 16 and 17 year old drivers. The reasoning? Because they are still considered minors. As soon as they turn 18 they are fully and completely responsible for what happens while they are driving. Also, driving is a privilege, not a right.

2) The MPAA ratings aren’t actual law.

3) Nothing stops 13 year olds from posting on the Internet, nor is it illegal. What is illegal is businesses collecting personal information about them.

Brandon, if you mean money, say money. Read what you said again, and think about whether dudes want a relationship that makes them feel unsafe, or whether they actually want instability in their lives.

Christ, what a twit.

Most states have restrictions on 16 and 17 year old drivers. The reasoning? Because they are still considered minors. As soon as they turn 18 they are fully and completely responsible for what happens while they are driving. Also, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Oh Christ, this is one of the stupidest things I’ve read on the Internets lately. Brandon, did you re-read that before you posted, and did it not strike you as circular? It’s like saying that the reason we call certain wines “Bordeaux” is because they are a particular shade of red.

But again, it is foolish to think that NO women value safety, security or stability from men or society at large.

All people value safety, security and stability. The fact that some women value those things “from men” is to a large extent because they have been conditioned to believe that it is either impossible or inappropriate for them to ensure their own safety, security and stability. Also, money =/= safety, security or stability. In a marriage where the rich husband beats the shit out of his wife and cheats on her, there is neither safety, nor security, nor stability.

But if we are going to have 21 be the age one can drink, engage in sex work, own a handgun, and a few others. Then we need to accept that the US sees 21 as the age of majority and move voting, conscription, entering into contracts…and all the other rights and obligations 18 year olds get currently to 21. There should only be one threshold to cross to becoming an adult.

Why do you insist that there can only be one minimum age? I don’t have a problem with changing the minimum age for conscription, voting, or entering contracts to 21. I’m just curious as to why you’ve become the Connor MacLeod about minimum ages.

There can be only one! (It’s too bad I couldn’t find that Highlander quote on youtube, because it would fit here.)

@Viscaria: Why are you looking at this so black and white? Do some women value net worth? Yes. Do some women value looks? Yes. Do some women value both net worth and looks? Yes.

So, just curious, because I can sometimes be what is known as a “shitty communicator”: does anyone else think I was suggesting something about all women being the same? Because what I was trying to do is point out that calling us all vicious, jealous harpies who are old and undesirable and just can’t handle that men in their 40s and beyond only want women in the 18-21 range without realizing that a lot of women in the 18-21 range aren’t going to be attracted to men in their 40s and beyond is, um, silly.

I am old, and have been married for quite some time and notice that those in my peer group who married for money or “safety” are all divorced now.

People who married those they were compatible with in general, are still married.

But this isn’t just about YOU. The point is about the general female population and if more women value net worth over the women that don’t.

Let us bask in the irony of that first sentence, shall we?

Citation needed. Show me where women value net worth more, and daytime TV doesn’t count. It’s not real, and I thought you didn’t watch that anyway.

Brandon: What does money have to do with it? Are you saying that any dude can flash a wad of cash and the women will all get wet, and want to drag him into the stalls for a zipless fuck?

Because that’s the only way that saying “men like looks, and women like money” makes sense. If you aren’t talking about relationships, just one night stands… you’re still wrong.

That you think women see the same dude, as being different people because they have a differently fat wallet (that was your example, same guy, different bank-book) is why I said you thought women were shallow bints… because you did.

Not that you have a much better opinion about men, you just don’t care, because you are a shallow bint.

Even when looking at one night stands your “logic” fails because what people like is hugely varied. I really recommend you go to some play parties (though I understand they are bit different in the Boston Area to the SF/LA scenes, with less actual sex taking place, and the focus being on kink-related play).

The point is that at 18 you are given the majority of the rights, privileges and obligations of being an adult. Two exceptions off the top of my head are drinking and handgun conceal carry laws in some states.

Maybe concealed carry, but every state in the union is 21 to drink.

Doesn’t your wall of text break the Brandon Challenge rules? Lotta “I” in there.

Thanks, Pecunium, for the image of Brandon at a play party.

“I’m here, why is no one paying attention TO MEEEEEEEE?”

What has Boston ever done to you? Why are you trying to curse it with a Brandon? Whatever it was, Boston can make it up without hosting something awful like a Brandon.

Handguns are 21, across the board.

Bostonian…. Boston is already cursed with a Brandon. I like Boston, I was at Arisia, and seeing some friends, just a few weeks ago.

I’m sorry that him being in Boston makes you sad. If it makes you feel better, sometimes Boston has Pecunium.

There is that. I can’t see him surviving the screening process at any of the play parties I know of. His boundary issues, and failure to understand what consent means are enough to keep him from staying, even if he could manage to get in.

@Kendra: Because you are either legally an adult…or your not. We shouldn’t have “Legal adult…but can’t drink, own a handgun, or be a prostitute”. Either the state grants you the ability to be treated as an adult, or it doesn’t. Do we really need some stupid caste system for deciding when people can engage in adult activity?

I can see it now:
“Oh you are capable enough to vote, handle a weapon for the state (e.g military)…but we don’t think you are capable enough to have a beer or privately own that same weapon you used in the military”

“Doesn’t that seem contradictory?”

“No of course not…because when you handle a weapon for the state, you are actually a different, more mature person then when you are just a private citizen.”

@Viscaria: I never said all women were old, haggard, jealous harpies. But some women are. Radicalhub has a whole bunch.

Also there are women in the 18-21 year old range that specifically date older men. Then there are older men that like to date 18-21 year olds…seems like they both want each other. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

@Hellkell: This isn’t about valuing looks or money MORE…it is about valuing looks or money PERIOD. Basically just seeing those things as a positive characteristic of someone and not a negative. The order in which they can be prioritized is going to be different for each person.

@Pecunium: umm…no. But having a bunch of money most likely wont hurt your chances with dating or sleeping with women to the extent that being poor will.

Again, this isn’t about looks or money overriding peoples ability to reason or critically think. And it doesn’t exclusively mean that men or women will continue to be around another person solely because they have money or looks.

We are all shallow. You, me, everyone else reading this, every human on the damn planet…is shallow to a certain extent. Some more than others.

Yes, what people like is widely varied. The point is that more people will select “physical attractiveness” more than “morbidly obese”, “ugly”, or ‘foot fetish”.

Again, this isn’t about looks or money overriding peoples ability to reason or critically think

Then why did you say that it wasn’t about relationships, but, “attraction”. Further clarifying that men like younger women (18 year old Madonna vs. 30 year year old Madonna), but women like money (guy with no money, same guy with money*).

And your definitions are tautological… People will choose what they think is attractive, be it youth, girth, lack of hair, unshaven armpits. You are presuming your preference is normative.

It’s not.

What makes you shallow isn’t that you have preferences, it’s that you deny them to be personal, and try to universalise them, and you arguing that anyone who doesn’t share them is an exception. The rest of us accept that people are people, and what they like is what they like, and that there isn’t any, “objective” standard.

You, don’t.

*The male corollary could be money (more specifically net worth). If you take the same man and show him with his net worth (say…$100K vs $1Million), more women would choose the higher net worth.

@Pecunium:Because this is about attraction..,not relationships. It is about what draws people in and makes them think positive things about people, it isn’t about what makes people commit to one another.

You keep trying to define what I am saying as “all men are attracted to younger women”. When my argument is “The majority of men are attracted to younger women”. Also, the argument isn’t “all men are attracted to younger women at the expense of older women”. It is “The majority of men will be attracted and notice younger women more than older women”.

I have a lot of preferences that I don’t say everyone has. Personally, I like girls with red hair. But I can still acknowledge that more men like blondes and/or brunettes.

People are people, but we are all bound by genetics and human psychology. We may all have different preferences, but those preferences aren’t unlimited.

I am not making the claim that there is an objective standard. I am however claiming that more men are attracted to younger women then to older women. That most men that are attracted to older women are also attracted to younger women (but not vice versa).

So back up your claim. Got any studies or anything else that doesn’t come from daytime TV?

Your ass is not a proper source.

Brandon: You keep saying, “As a rule men are attracted to younger women”.

Support it.

As to the attraction issue… you are making the claim that money = sexy, the same way that age does. Actually you are making the claim more broadly, in that the same guy, according you gets more sexy based not on age, or clothes, or getting a new haircut, but rather for having a bigger wad of bills.

I am not making the claim that there is an objective standard.

Yes you are.

objective: adj
1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions are there objective moral values?
2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias
3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.

I am however claiming that more men are attracted to younger women then to older women. That most men that are attracted to older women are also attracted to younger women (but not vice versa).

That’s an objective claim. “More men are attracted to younger women than older women”, to which you add the corollary, (but not vice versa).

That’s three objective claims.

So, got some evidence for that that? Something with a good working definition, and controls to deal with the problem of those who are looking, vs. those who are stable, and so not in the pool of people who will answer surveys about, “what do you look for in a new sexual partner”.

Also, can you make it universal, and factor out the issues which aren’t genetic (i.e. the cultural ones). Don’t forget to factor in the cultural norms of times past, esp. when dealing with body types; e.g. Ruebens, Titian, Gibson Girls, the prehistoric Venii of Central Europe).

You are making claims about all of humanity, so you need to work with all of humanity, not just the US/European culture which dominates the visual media you see.

When you say, “more ‘x’ are ‘y’,and it’s hardwired into our genes” that’s the scope of your claim. A cursory look at cultures outside modern America show it to be a false one.

Also there are women in the 18-21 year old range that specifically date older men. Then there are older men that like to date 18-21 year olds…seems like they both want each other. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

Who am I to what where what the fuck are you talking about, dude? You are seriously confused, or possibly just being extremely disingenuous. I do not care if younger women are sleeping with older men. They can sleep with whoever the fuck they want, it’s their call. Much like it is my call, as a 22 year old, to sleep with my 37 year old boyfriend.

Jeeeeeeesus.

David pwned Brandon!
David pwned Brandon!
David pwned Brandon!
David pwned Brandon!

* * *
A fair number of “I”s sneaking back in there, I notice, and the topic is one that Brandon has rehashed over and over and over again.

I’m betting he slips off the “make it about something other than yourself” pretty damn soon, because it’s clear that while he’s talking about “men” it’s really all about him.

And Pecunium is pushing him hard to realize that, ahahahahahahahahaha

Oh, and:

David pwned Brandon!

Because I’m a goddamn glutton for punishment, I’m going to try this again. You’re saying “there are women in the 18-21 year old range that specifically date older men,” and you’re also saying “there are older men that like to date 18-21 year olds.” Do you think there are 18-21 year old men who want to date older women, or older women who want to date 18-21 year old men? If not, why. What is different about women and men that makes two of these preferences reasonable, and the other two impossible?

Also there are women in the 18-21 year old range that specifically date older men. Then there are older men that like to date 18-21 year olds…seems like they both want each other. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

Who has that they can’t? What we’ve been saying is this is a problematic paradigm and to pretend it’s not, and the motives of all men who advocate and promote the idea that older man/younger woman is benign and harmless, because nature and evolution is disingenuous.

ithiliania: It’s not that I am aiming to do that… it’s just that we are dealing with Brandon, and he’s a narcissist, with the introspection of a rock.

So when pressed on his logic, the apparently inherent, “because I think so” which seems to underlie all his opinions will come to the fore, because he is unwilling to use outside sources/submit his thinking to rational analysis.

Brandon: Do you not see the difference between “older men date younger women because evolution” and “older people of all genders may date younger people if they so wish, and good for them”?

@Pecunium: An objective standard would be “all men like blonde women, 20 years old, with a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 and an IQ of 111”. The whole point of an objective standard is that it is very specific. My argument is more relative. The point is youth is valued by men. Just in the same way “confidence” and “humor” are valued by the majority of women. Sure, I bet you could find a small number of women that like weak-willed, boring men but the majority of women do not want those kinds of men. Now just replace women with men and confidence/humor with looks.

I am sure you will dismiss any source I link to. I can link to sources that help my position and you can link to sources that help yours. In the end, neither of our opinions will change.

Again, I am not making claims against all of humanity. I am not saying “all men” or “all women” or “every human being on the face of the earth”. My argument deals with a subset of the population. The “majority of men” does not equal humanity. With women making up 51% of the population. And to qualify as the “majority of men” one only needs 50% of the men. That means I am talking about roughly 24-26% of the human population. Hardly all of humanity.

@Viscaria: You say you do not care, but Pecunium sees those relationships as suspect. One can not say they do not care but sees those relationships as suspect or with any form of suspicion. Not caring equals indifference and suspicion does not equal indifference. Get it? Seeing something with suspicion is mutually exclusive with being indifferent and not caring about it. By suspecting it, you do care about it.

La la, still ignoring the fact that women care about men’s looks too, that’s not important because it doesn’t serve my point as Brandon The Wise, la la.

HA! “I can link to sources, but it wouldn’t solve anything.” Fabulous dodge, weasel-boy.

You can look at something with a suspicious side-eye and still not really care about, oh Master of Nuance. Only someone as thick as you would come up with that.

It’s the damnedest thing. Every time I try to read Brandon’s posts, I end up nodding off. Weird.

If no one’s minds will be changed… why are you bothering?

Brandon’s argument suggests that the average man would be interested in a weak-willed, boring woman. Otherwise, why specify gender?

He’s bothering because he’s Brandon, and to him, the mere act of him speaking is enough to change minds. Reality be damned.

He’s got a penis and a keyboard, and he wants us bitches to RECOGNIZE.

Pecunium, I had no idea we were the same person! That’s kind of awesome for me, you have a bunch of neat accomplishments. All I can really offer you is a messy house and a halfway-decent singing voice. Well, and a pretty sweet stuffed animal collection.

Brandon: You don’t understand what objective means. I tried to help you, since it seemed you might have been unclear. What it seems now is your ignorance is willful.

Objective means it can be measured against. It’s not the same as absolute. X is better than Y is an obejective standard if both X and Y are measurable.

Most men are taller than women, is an objective standard. Most Americans prefer vanilla ice cream to pistachio is an objective standard. They are testable, and measurable.

So to is, “most men prefer younger women”. I explained to you why the objective standard you are asserting doesn’t work; because the measures to test your standard (Men, as a rule, prefer younger women, and it’s an evolutionarily created trait).

You decided you didn’t wan’t to attempt to engage it. You quit the field.

Your dodge on the issue (that all you need is 25.1 percent of humanity) is ignoring that you aren’t looking at present humanity, but all of humanity, across time. That’s because you didn’t say it was a cultural standard (which you would be in a better position to defend), but an evolutionary one.

Again, you aren’t reading for content. It’s almost as if you don’t care about the responses, because your mind was made up before you started.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.