Isn’t this redundant?
Regards,
Shodan
No communism, a classless society, is not the aim of liberalism. Communism is the aim of communism. Liberalism is a different ideal, concerned more with the maximizing of freedom.* The fact that many Americans confuse the two (even quite poorly educated people in other countries know the difference) is a reflection of ignorance and a degraded level of political discourse in the country.
*Liberals differ from Libertarians in that they believe that the unregulated freedom advocated by the latter would soon degenerate into a system in which a minority of successful individuals would dominate, and most people would lose most of their freedom. In the real world, the maximization of freedom requires that there be some, limited, restrictions on absolute freedom.
No, but I need my buttocks fondled regularly to live.
That’s lovely, except that doesn’t particularly describe what liberals do when they actually push for policy changes. In politics as in real life, you don’t get to define yourself; your actions define you.
Transfer payments don’t cease with minimal survival needs, as you define them.
Yes and no. All men think they deserve more sex and can ignore their vows of monogamy, if they can get away with it. Wealth and power have nothing to do with this. You may have noticed that the poorest classes have issues with deadbeat dads and mothers with large families of half-related children.
The highest status men… the seriously rich and powerful… can get away with practicing the forms of polygamy tolerated in America… multiple mistresses, serial wives… the really, seriously rich ones.
Spitzer wasn’t at the top of the status ladder, he was just a glorified public servant who couldn’t get away with maintaining a harem any more than I can. Thus he was reduced to using the outlet of any working Joe who just needs a little more than he’s getting at home, but knows it’s “cheaper to keep her” and can’t risk open infidelity.
Interesting. I would think that a legalized and regulated sex industry would be less succeptable to human trafficing than one that is completely underground.
That’s a pretty broad brush you are painting with there. ALL men?
Sure…just like anyone else…until they get caught. Just ask Tiger Woods or Hugh Grant.
I doubt “any working Joe” is dropping thousands of dollars on high-end call girls.
Figuring that 90% of prostitutes are illegals, underage, or addicts, not really.
Illegal prostitutes also are cheaper, have to accept any treatment (which might be as simple as not requiring a condom), and are entirely at your mercy, which is a bit of a turn-on for many. If you just want to ejaculate, you can use your hand. Most people who visit prostitutes have a regular sexual partner (girlfriend/wife). They’re seeing a prostitute to get a particular experience, which is about power and self-gratification. Having to reign yourself back so you don’t get in trouble with the big muscular guy out front at the same time as you’re paying $300 isn’t worth it. If you can get a girl for $50 and not have to worry about what you’re doing, you go for it.
Probably most of them don’t have particularly bad intentions, but I suspect many of them lie to themselves a bit about how the girl actually ended up in the room with them. And of course even with the best intentions, sometimes testosterone can get the better of you–as statistics on the quality of life of a prostitute shows.
The market just isn’t in legal prostitution. Illegal is where the money is.
Am I sensing some jealousy of Tiger Woods ?
Thinking that one need not obey the rules of monogamy is universal to all classes of men. Perhaps not every last man.
Neither one of these guys will have any problem satisfying himself with a never-ending parade of nookie for the rest of their lives in spite of having been caught. Nonetheless, neither of these guys are the most rich or powerful. They’re entertainers and they’ve got money, but not enough to be permitted to maintain multiple women with (more or less) impunity.
No, maybe a hundred bucks on an average call girl. Everybody who explicitly pays for sex is in the same class. They have too much to risk from getting caught maintaining multiple consensual relationships, so they pay a woman who will satisfy them and then go away quietly (they hope, anyways). Eliot Spitzer is no different in this regard from an average guy who wants extramarital sex but has to be careful about limiting his downside risk.
What do you mean “permitted?” Permitted by who? Their wives, or society at large? Who is rich enough or powerful enough to maintain multiple women in extramarital affairs “with impunity?” It seems like it’s more of a matter of what kind of woman the man in question is married to, and less of how rich or powerful he is. Some women would put up with affairs; others would seek divorce and a large financial settlement.
No average guys anywhere want extramarital sex? Please get back to me when you’ve read your cite (and you live on planet Earth).
Cosmic Relief - It’s pretty clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you don’t think Tiger Woods isn’t “rich enough” and Eliott Spitzer wasn’t “powerful enough” then you are clearly living in a fantasy world. Bill Clinton was the President of the Most Powerful Nation on Earth and he couldn’t get away with having an affair.
Let me break it down for you. ALMOST NO MAN is able to carry on multiple sexual relationships with impunity while married. Why? Because HIS WIFE will get pissed off and humilated and seek retribution. It doesn’t matter how rich or powerful you are. And if the man has any sort of fame or prestige, the press will have a field day.
Are there circumstaces where a man can take on a mistress? Sure. If you are relatively anonymous but wealthy enough and have a trophy wife or something who really only cares about the lifestyle you provide, maybe she might give tacit approval if you show some discretion. But these are the exception, not the rule.
As for prostitutes, men frequent them because they are guaranteed sex without having to worry about emotional attachment or other baggage. You don’t have to spend all night in a bar picking up a girl. You don’t need to take her out on dates or buy her gifts. You don’t need to worry about calling your house and having your wife accidently answer. You go, do you thing, pay, and leave. The only risk is if you are famous and the girl thinks there might be something to be gained from exposing you. But for most people that’s not an issue.
A guy who maintains a mistress (as in a entire full-on relationship) on the side is a different matter. This is a guy who is dissatisfied with his life or marriage but for whatever reason is unable to get out of it. Maybe religeous, social or financial pressure prevents him from getting a divorce. So for him, this secret relationship is new and exciting.
I do!
If you’re female then I’m your man 
Name your price, or is it free?
I read once that the Marquis de Sade proposed state brothels in which all women would be required to serve at some point in their lives.
[shrug] Makes no less sense than military conscription . . .
Every word after “sex” in that sentence is superfluous.
Horniness differential?
I have been told for years now that women are just as frisky as guys.
The difference is emotional: Women seem to form emotional bonds with their sex mates faster.
I am mistaken?
IMHO, the average guy would rather fuck 10 women once than one woman 20 times. Women don’t think that way.
Not sure I agree with THAT. I will say that if a woman (of at least near-average looks) is rather insistent that a man have sex with her, she’s going to get her wish 9 times out of 10 unless the man has EXTREMELY specific reasons to refuse. That figure’s nowhere near as high with the roles reversed.
Put another way, if stopped on the street by a slightly below-average-looking female stranger and offered oral sex, the vast majority of men will go for it. If stopped on the street by an extremely hot male stranger with the same offer, most women will scream and run away.