Only if April says “no” which - as we all now know - means “yes, please, NOW!”
OTOH, if April says “yes”, then we have to call it Legalize Prostitutes for Rape Prevention Month and then go have sex with its mother at a bar.
Or something…
Oh I didn’t know the R in April R stood for Rape. That’s interesting! 
The thing is, I really don’t give a shit how young and horny and inexperienced he is. He’s basically touting some pretty bullshit “solution” which perpetuates the role of women as empty sex providers to men. Fuck that noise. I’m not going to be like “oh, sweetie pie, no, dear, here’s how it is” when he keeps saying “It’s a good idea! Just think about it!”
Again, I would be interested to discuss this further in a GD thread, because I think it’s interesting to talk about. But frankly, to hold on with a death grip to the idea that legalizing an industry which puts women squarely in the role of “valuable as penis receptacle” does not increase their standing in society, it reinforces an unfortunate gender myth. And thatz not cool.
Not hardly. The “PRO” people are as follows: an associate professor of Finance, a lawyer who was an undergraduate student at the time of the quote, who later became Director of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Child Custody Pro Bono Project (who talks about an INCREASE in rape following criminalization of prostitution, not evidence of the inverse being true), and a columnist in India, a country renowned for its experience handling rapists and placing value on women.
Interestingly, the “CON” people are as follows: the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, the Safer Society Foundation, Inc., and a PhD, Founding Director of the Prostitution Research and Education organization writing in the journal “Violence Against Women”. You know, people who all work with women and prostitutes and research rape and prostitution. They all feel like it would be bad for rape statistics to legalize prostitution.
But that finance guy and the dude from India think it would be a great idea. Their arguments include, “The more you try to put down prostitution, the higher will be the incidence of crime against innocent women. You may find the idea repulsive but ponder over it and you will realise there is substance in the argument.”
Meaning, it sounds weird, but just think about it guys!! Just think about it.
Call me… 
I haven’t read the entire thread in question–just the first and last pages–but am I the only one seeing a recurring meme of “social interaction with a woman has no value unless it results in sex”?
I realize that this isn’t as bad as “no doesn’t really mean no,” but I feel like the former feeds into the latter, just a bit.
That’s a common theme around here. In relationship threads, some guys will unashamedly state they do not want to be friends with women, they only want to screw them.
Ha!
True. You should have seen my disappointment when the internet guy showed up. Totally not my type, but I had to let him in if I wanted working internet, but you know what letting someone in means. 
Very well written. What I find so infuriating about the debate is the very men who insist they get “mixed signals” from women who engage in contemporary Western courtships rituals and dating are usually equally infuriated with women like me. No man who has ever come in contact with me no matter how profound his Asperger’s is could ever interpret my behavior as flirting or a signal for sex. I don’t touch men who aren’t my family. I would never be alone in a room with a man who wasn’t related to me. One would think if they find dealing with women so confusing they would appreciate this blunt obviousness in my personality. Instead far too many of them are infuriated when a women even in the most brief and ideally formal social interactions doesn’t acknowledge that they are men desirable for sex.
Just caught the ass end of a movie called “Crazy Stupid Love”
In it a young 13yo bot is constantly trying to win the affection of a girl. After being rejected by this girl for the 100th time, he’s about to give up. That is until his dad pops in and basically says: “No son, you can NEVER give up. Keep on trying son! Never give up on true love!”
I found this be slightly creepy. But I think it kind of underscores what going on in this thread and what’s going on in today’s society. It’s a cultural paradigm that us men have to be persistent.
Don’t get me wrong MOL’s guy was being an asshat. I’m just trying to illustrate where some of this asshatery might be coming from.
Hell, if Hollywood’s idea of romance is stalking a woman until she capitulates, we’re all fucking doomed.
Actually, it goes something like this.
-
I’m young
-
I’m handsome
-
I’m confident
-
I’m charming
-
I can’t possibly be beaten
-
etc…
Look, I get that it was out of line to bring up the topics that I did in that particular thread. I was simply trying to discuss what would make somebody act like the guy in question and what solutions we may have available. Some of you think my idea is stupid. So be it.
That’s no reason to insult and demonize me. I didn’t do that to any of you because it simply takes away from the discussion. In reality, I don’t know you and you don’t know me. So all of this name calling means nothing at all.
Bots NEVER give up!
Right, some guys have watched too many movies. “Persistence = key!” No, dipshits, persistence = stalking. If I’m not interested now, I’m not going to become interested because you keep pestering me.
What about now.
Okay!
(score!)
I think I’ve said this in about a billion other threads on male/female relationships, and I hope this doesn’t come off as threadshitting, but it’s issues like these that make me just so glad I’m gay >_<. I live in a completely different world where no means no, I don’t feel like anyone has ever been rudely persistent with me, nor I toward them, and I certainly would never confuse an invitation to get out of the rain as code for, “I want you to fool around with me,” especially when you have flat out told me there is no interest and you’re only doing it to be nice.
By which I assume you mean no. Dammit.
Shit all you like, you’re in the pit. But you get it, right? The words of men are taken at face value. The words of women are translated through a thick, greasy filter of misogyny which informs men that women are tricky bitches who employ all manner of cock-blocks in order to confound them and prevent them from getting their due poon. It’s nothing but projection and wishful thinking, and it’d be amusing if it weren’t for the “never give up!” meme and the testimonials where men admit to wearing a woman down until she gives in.
But women are fucked either way because we do like sex, we do like men and want companionship, friendship, and relations. But we never know if we’re in the presence of an evolved, humanist male who respects people, or if we’re trapped in an apartment or elevator with Rapey McFelony.
And waiting around to establish emotional intimacy before sex, hey, fuck that shit - why should I waste my time? She’s hot, I want her, I really don’t give a damn what her interests or emotional needs are. But she’s supposed to give a damn about my physical needs.
MOL’s original thread should be a sticky we can point to for every time a guy comes on and wants to know why women are bitches and unapproachable.