See: http://www.now.org/issues/media/061506duke.html

But they are all for the economic empowerment that men give women in the woman exercising her choice to do what she wants with her body without the constriants of society.

See their asinine dualism?

Your free, but do not make men happy!

Government and society have not right to constrain you, but do not show your body!

You are independent and emancipated, your attributes are to be respected , but do not respect or associate with men!

Feminism is a sypmtom of a mind diseased by asinine dualism. It seeks to control women, to make them act illogically, reject their nature, and drive them to desolation and insanity.

Feminism is the delicious candy coating for the Feminine Materialistic disposition, on a ciyanide capsule which will kill her when she bites into it to have it all.

No matter how it is Marketed or justified to the Woman, the end is Death of her Heart.

Instead you disrepect him publicly and call names like the sick Marxist that you are.

Looks like you are due for a change.

Time to prove yourself and lead, not hide here and call names.

Right, PolishKnight. Perhaps in those other cultures women better appreciate the value of a man, something which has been rather systematically done away with in this culture, and replaced with its opposite: man-as-liability thinking. As women in this culture become more important and valuable (in their minds at least) their tendency to cling to their Cinderella Complexes increases, thus reinforcing old sex roles rather than liberating people from them. Curious how ‘equality’ worked out…

> Most women, including feminists, are sexual prudists who oppose
> legalized prostitution and pornography because most admit, when
> honestly confronted, that they know men would be empowered.

Again, yes. The original anti-hooking laws were fundamentally designed to make sure a man brought his wages home to his wife and kids rather than squander them selfishly on himself the way a ‘modern, smart, successful, independent woman’ would blow what she makes on another pair of $500 shoes. In other words, it was about protecting the interests of one woman against those of another, with the man and his money being caught in the middle, his interests not really mattering compared to those of the larger society concerned about the wellbeing of children and their mothers.

But does this mean men who are not married shouldn’t be constrained to obey the same laws as those who are married and thus have obligations to others? Or are the laws moot because women are pretty free to act like hookers as it is, just so long as they don’t do it openly on street-corners? I don’t know the answers, but it’s worth thinking about, even if it’s pretty off-topic here to do so. Perhaps if the ‘movement’ here wants to raise its profile a bunch it should consider making the liberation of the most looked-down-upon women via the repeal of these ancient anti-prostitution laws a part of its cause…

You will see men borrowing (to buy these machines) MORE than they borrow to buy a house now. And it would be money well spent too.

A hell of a lot less riskier than spending money on a real woman. When this happens (and it will because it will make somebody incredibly rich) there will be a huge power-shift in favor of men.

Because the same won’t hold true for women, they would hate holodeck men. How do you tell a machine programmed to obey to tell you no & to take charge?

I don’t know if that’s technically true. Prostitution and stripping does produce income and a “service” so I would argue that it could be included in the GNP of a nation just as much as any other service that isn’t necessarily exportable (like maid service or restaurants.)

Clearly, men enjoy strippers enough to pay big bucks for them. I personally find strippers and strip clubs to be rather sad places and practices with the women getting huge money to milk men’s sexual desires and the men often acting in brutal, angry, or pathetic ways when their sexual urges are being exploited. Bleah! That said, such base, raw, human desires are interesting to express and get out of one’s system at a bachelor party or group outing. I’ve only done this three times in my whole life and have little desire to go again.

On the other hand, prostitution is a profession that gives men FULL expression of their sexual desire. Rather than being teased and pressured, the men actually enjoy the ability to release their sexual urges, fully and to completion, without having to go through mating rituals and pretenses. The problem is that with prostitution being illegal it’s horribly expensive. But in cultures where prostitution is legal men are treated much better and consequently treat women much better. Dating becomes a mating ritual rather than sullied with sexual extortion or gambits.

Most women, including feminists, are sexual prudists who oppose legalized prostitution and pornography because most admit, when honestly confronted, that they know men would be empowered.

Men who are serious about marriage (because it IS good for men), first have to get everything that is not normal out of their head, and not pick a woman until they know how to pick one.

I don’t want to dismiss this rather extreme claim out of hand but instead analyze why it’s true in some ways but largely not.

One reason men may go for the “sick” women is that they’re noticable. Period. “Normal” women, especially in the states, are passive-aggressive as hell and want a man to take total responsibility for the relationship. Consequently, most of them are “sick” in that they think the man should take all the risks and responsibilities while they play it safe.

I know because I tried a lot of women in a room, literally (such as dating get togethers and gatherings with thousands of people in a room). Most of the women almost immediately sat at tables and talked to each other and ignored the men while the PAM would stand around the hall like wolves looking for an opportunity to pounce. The absolutely most attractive members of both sexes were out on the dance floor flirting with each other.

The men don’t just “pick” the women. At least not since the 1950’s. Feminism and traditional cultural attitudes has taught the women they are entitled to a handsome, wealthy prince and the passiveness helps them to avoid rejection while kicking the normal schlubs out the door and reinforce the notion that the more losers that ask them out, the more they should wait for that perfect prince.

In other cultures, women take a more active role in meeting men. They just don’t go to a room and play a waiting game. In other words, women were treating men like crap back when it was “traditional” to do so. Feminism is just an extension of that attitude.

Marxist Statist Marriage MUST be avoided at all costs.

A man and woman can negotiate their needs.

The State and the Officers of the Court cannot be controled and bound to the RIghts of Man.

They are treasonous Predators. They will give no quarter.

Teach the boys well.

“which results from – you guessed it – more male badness. Checkmate.”

If you are going to be bad, might as well enjoy it.

Hookers do have a function. They are far, far, far less expensive and generally provide far less of a headache than a wife. Who needs to have kids in this day and age anyway?

Want to live a content life? Avoid marriage. If you can’t get free sportsex from “independent womyn” then by all means, hire a hooker.

That’s because they tend to think all men are guilty, of something. David Thomas wrote about this in his excellent book “Not Guilty” about a dozen years ago. Women in general derive so much from making men prove themselves innocent, worthy, good, or whatever that I don’t think they’ll ever give it up. It’s just too much a part of their nature. The male-invented presumption of innocence is in direct opposition to this impulse.

> Radical women’s advocates are famous for pretending that
> stripping and prostitution are honorable employment options.

Of course. Doing those same things for free would be the ultimate in degradation and oppression, because obviously a $500 ‘escort’ has way higher status than a $25 hustling street-walker — except that a girl-gone-wild is empowered by briefly being an amateur flasher becaue it would be so controlling to prevent her from doing what she wants to do.

A wife not only ‘gives it away for free’ but also cooks, cleans, and tends to the kids, among other things, which is why marriage is such a rad-fem horror compared to the noble profession of hooking, not that too many of `em take up the biz, and I doubt many `tutes are rad-fems.

Oh well, on another day the fact that there are ’sex workers’ in the first place is a truly Bad Thing which results from – you guessed it – more male badness. Checkmate.

“After the interview, I shook hands with Kathleen and suggested that we work together to tighten up laws and procedures so agencies helping women do the right thing the majority of the time. Kathleen spit back “There is no chance that will ever happen”, and stomped off the set, leaving the host and producer with astonished looks on their faces.”

Do you know if that is on YouTube? That would do “wonders” for Hanrahan’s credibility.

First of all there was nowhere near the amount of public outcry and reasoned criticism required to provoke change.

The “crucial language” was token and essentially meaningless from the start: it was simply not included in the conference committee’s version of the bill that was sent to the President—which didn’t take any specific act of bribery.

Feminism is a cancer in society. Islam is a Mack Truck bearing down on you. Stepping back onto the pavement (sidewalk) will let the truck roar past but the cancer is going to eat your liver. Given the choice of a way to go, the truck looks like a quick and easy option.