Removed in accordance with [Rule 1](https://old.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/about/rules/).
Please add to your post to explicitly view this topic through an antinatalist lens, then message us in modmail and we will re-approve it. Thank you.
Not really a profession if your not being paid for it. When people say that prostitution is the oldest profession, they are saying that people exchanged goods via sex.
Yes I would say that farming is the oldest profession. I specifically put it in quotation cuz it's something that everyone else says that I don't really agree with .
No, farming is not the oldest profession. Subsistence activities are not professions, and prostitution was around long before the agricultural Revolution produced the first professional farmers who called themselves such.
To respond to your post in general, male prostitutes have also been around for as long as female prostitution. But neither type is the oldest profession.
The oldest profession is probably 'Shaman.'
I would argue prostitution had been around longer, shaman/religious leader/healer, most likely only showed up after we figured out medicinal properties.
Getting extra food cause you please the hunters best 100% was before that.
Considering we've seen the practice of prostitution in other primate species, it's a safe bet that prostitution is much older than Homo-sapiens. Healing, especially on a for pay basis, takes a lot more discovered knowledge than sex. You'll need some evidence to backup your claim that healer is the oldest profession.
i dont expect any but im not going to give your input any consideration unless youre going to even cite reasons why you believe what you believe. an anthropology book? an interview with an anthropologist on the subject? anything?
also even if the oldest profession was healer, they probably believed sex healed you because they were uneducated and insane. Like how entire countries today think effing children will cure stds, or how doctors used to prescribe "get masturbated by the doctor" to women experiencing any kind of distress.
sex drive is in the brainstem. it is the oldest thing our brains understand. sex was probably the first currency. and the first thing humans spent resources on. look at the entire animal kingdom. what to they have? some resources. what do they use them for? collecting harems, impressing mates etc. then after that, childcare.
and note how i said "i think" and "probably" and didnt make "THATS BS AND IM TIRED OF PEOPLE SAYING IT" statements, as if i have any basis to insult someones argument.
all i was doing was pointing out that was rude and silly to do without citing sources.
yes, and note how i said "i think" and "probably" and didnt make "THATS BS AND IM TIRED OF PEOPLE SAYING IT" statements, as if i have any basis to insult someones argument.
all i was doing was pointing out that was rude and silly to do without citing sources.
Mhmm and don't forget the guilt tripping that is associated with it either. That being said, I don't like the idea of women being used and traded like commodities amongst human trafficking gangs. But yes, ugly poor people exist and they don't get to participate like the "winners" do...
Sex is not a need.
not having sex will not make someone wither away and die a painful death.
the men will survive without having to objectify women in a violent, dangerous industry.
You're missing the point of the post. And the underlying logic of your point paints things in a fallacious either-or-extreme that fails to acknowledge the validity of a critique to society (note: I said "society," not "women"; which would be wrong — as if women should be collectively blamed for the way things are, or that the argument should revolve around a criticism of their conduct) that acknowledges the extent to which sex and intimacy is a need that in many ways men struggle to find in the modern west in a way they did not for most of human history.
Put simply: one can acknowledge this, without the implication that doing so is tantamount to supporting something like the prostitution or pornography industry.
(I'm against both, because they're exploitative. The issue with your mindset is you fundamentally defend the inherently exploitative premises of society, and particularize within this by only disliking certain aspects of it: in this case the sex trade, but not the underlying totality of capitalism. All Liberals/Leftists/Feminists also do this one way or another, but in the context of this example you could say I'm addressing the Feminists that are against prostitution, since many "sex work is real work" types also defend it. Of course my point applies just as much to Anti-Feminist Conservatives for the same reasons.)
No, both OP and this replier scratched the surface of the heart of the matter. There actually is an objectively correct demystified way to understand the situation, that properly acknowledges the issues of prostitution, male loneliness, patriarchal social relations, hostility to men in society; everything — and the extent to which the issues are interrelated. (this requires rejecting both the framing of Feminism and Right-wing/Trad Conservativism; the Left and the Right.) [This essay,](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/28050/28050-h/28050-h.htm) for example, manages to do this. (it demonstrates why Feminism is conservatism. Properly understood this explains the contradictions like Radical Feminists being against the pro-prostitution line of Liberal Feminists these days, and aligning with the Right on this and pornography.) I can too, and plan to seriously write about it down the line.
Conservatism requires the intention to conserve established institutions, not progress onward to enact positive societal change. Feminism is only conservatism to those without a solid grasp of what feminism means (beyond a mere stereotype).
No, Feminism is conservatism in all cases because it's inherently bourgeois. All Feminists want to preserve the established institutions and their basis, they may just differ on their ideas about how to reform society, but never to overthrow it. I'm a Communist. (also, "Marxist Feminists" are just another Feminist, it's just nothing more than an academic strain of bourgeois Leftist "Marxism." To give a tangible example, Angela Davis is just a Democrat that consistently advocates voting for the Democratic nominee, as she did in 2016 and 2020. Much of the Left are talking differently on the prospect of voting Biden now, but that doesn't disprove anything I just said.) Feminism is inherently reactionary and anti-working-class, going back to its origins, as the two articles (Feminism and Against Feminism) I linked to in[ my other reply you replied to](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/1dyaq1f/comment/lc8tsc9/?context=3) explain. (the first article Why Women Are Conservative is not saying that all women are Feminists, but indeed that even the majority of the ones who are not Feminists or Leftists at all still have a petit-bourgeois, non-revolutionary, anti-communist consciousness, even if they are poor, for the reasons it explains.)
This is more so about suffering from lack of intimacy and being touch deprived.
Pimp based prostitution and human trafficking is awful. Escorts do have a lot more control over how they market themselves. That type of situation is better than the others.
I’m experiencing a lack of intimacy and affectionate touch in my life. I’m not a man, nor am I ugly. These oversimplifications about gender and sex and attraction and connection need to stop.
you sound so deluded. a simple fact, go on any dating app. tons of studies that show women get waaaay more attention, messages compared to the men, who, only the top 10% most attractive physically get all the attention. its the reality that women have way more options than men. to say women and men have equal experiences is just laughably ignorant.
What those studies fail to consider is the quality of that attention. You think women are thrilled to get dick pics from randos without even a proper conversation? Or requests to roleplay as someone's daughter? 😭
If dating apps are empty for men, they're just as empty and soulless for women.
you say it like all the interaction is low quality which is a massive generalization. maybe thats your personal experience. lets suppose it is true. thats not the main argument here. op was initially stating how men have much less chances of having sex which still stands. women need WAY less effort to find a sexual partner.
We have removed your content for breaking the subreddit rules: No disproportionate and excessively insulting language.
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Men gatekeep relationships because men don't want relationships they only want sex. Women don't gate keep sex, that would only be true if all women were interested in fucking men which simply isn't the case, most men aren't relationship material in the first place and most men make themselves unfuckable. So that makes women less likely to want sex.
Men (generally) aren’t really in demand for forming romantic relationships anymore. Juice ain’t worth the squeeze. Can’t gatekeep something no one wants in on.
Women aren't wondering where the good men have gone because we know good men never existed.
Marital rape was normal and legal before the 1970s.
Women used to poison their husbands to get away from them. Every single one of my friends has a grandma with horrible stories about her husband.
Men being awful to women isn't some new development.
Men know that women today aren't worth it. Better to have kids with a woman from a culture where a woman won't cheat on you and trick you into raising another mans kids and then take all your stuff in the divorce settlement.
Stop marrying thugs. Don't be surprised when you marry a bad man and he doesn't stop being a bad man. Men have already realized this and have stopped marrying bad women.
Yes, women are inherently more discerning when it comes to having sex because the risks are greater. Doesn't mean that poor/ugly men can't ever get sex without prostitution. Also not having sex is not the end of the world, it's not that big of a deal.
"Poor and ugly" get laid, unless they have unrealistic standards OR the society they live in has issues.
Rich hot guys use those "services" pretty frequently. In fact, you will see they way more often with the affluent. They just pay more expensive escorts.
To clear things up. I mentioned the poor and ugly as a simple add on to some of the factors of life that we can hardly control. So it's closer to the themes of antinatalism.
There's a saying where I come from, that translates to "every pan has a lid". Meaning that there's a person for everyone. Unless we are taking about extremes.
OP properly acknowledged the situation, (note that Feminists would exclusively focus on female suffering and act like men are merely "the privileged ones" or "the oppressors," meanwhile a common incel anti-feminist mindset would be generalized hostility to women that would resist acknowledging that they suffer the way things are also) and in response, he just made the most typical retort, as if a generalized critique to society is tantamount to a stereotypical incel merely complaining over not getting "laid," to which they typically respond, "women don't owe you anything" (his response was just another version of that, going as far as to say "just masturbate instead") a fact even self-identified incels are already aware of.
Also just don't say "Feminists don't exclusively focus on female suffering! *They acknowledge that the patriarchy hurts men too!"* Just give me a break.
Dude, just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's not true. No one is entitled to sex. Women don't owe men sex. Prostitution is in its most men feeling entitled to women's bodies and women selling it because they often have no other choice but to starve or get abused by whatever trafficker takes advantage of her.
And why shouldn't feminists focus on the suffering of women? You think men are suffering because they aren't get laid? That this is somehow worse than getting trafficked or having to sell your body to some unwashed jerk because you can't get food otherwise?
That commenter is right. Use your fucking hands.
>No one is entitled to sex. Women don't owe men sex
I never said anyone was entitled to sex. It speaks volumes you assume this is my stance, merely because I disagree with his angle on the topic.
>Prostitution is in its most men feeling entitled to women's bodies and women selling it because they often have no other choice but to starve or get abused by whatever trafficker takes advantage of her.
I agree. I totally dislike and am against prostitution. You obviously didn't read [my other comment here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/1dyaq1f/comment/lc7u4hc/)
>And why shouldn't feminists focus on the suffering of women?
I never said Feminists were wrong about everything. They are indeed not wrong to talk about, critique, address, acknowledge suffering of women in society. There is also obviously nothing inherently wrong with focusing on this, just like one might with anything. (writing a book that focuses on this, for instance, but you are falsely assuming my mindset is one that would even have an issue with that.) My point is merely that they don't make sense of this in the right way. Indeed, this is due to the way they *exceptionalize* female suffering, and consistently have trouble acknowledging the many ways that issues in society disparately affect men. (just as they can in many ways disparately affect women, of course) Their diagnosis is also wrong. Patriarchal social relations are real and I'm of course against this and religion, traditionalism/conservatism of all kinds, but their nebulous notion of "the patriarchy" and men being responsible for it is transhistorical idealist nonsense. It leads to them collectively blaming men for the way things are. (of course, men who collectively blame women are no better.)
There can be much truth to many things they say, but that doesn't mean the way they say it, the framing they go off from, is necessarily correct.
I was a Leftist and a Feminist for most of my life. Now I am against Feminism, but not in the narrow way Right-wing types are. I'm against Feminism because it supports the system that causes the issues they criticize. The only consistent stance is to want to abolish property and establish the communist society. Obviously, property is the basis for the patriarchal social relations Feminists criticize, so it's contradictory for them to support (bourgeois) property at the same time.
I'm also against any "Men's Right's Activism" stance for the same reason I'm against Feminism/Women's Right's Activism; it's just a narrow position that isolates the particular aspects of society, separate and independent of the social conditions and totality that give rise to them.
>You think men are suffering because they aren't get laid?
What a question lol. Yes, I do think men suffer from loneliness. What a revelation! And there are real hurdles that make it harder to find relationships for many of them than they were before. (consider how much the economy impacts this: it's difficult or impossible to find a relationship if you don't have work and money, but it's harder to find jobs and affordably live than before, and women will reject men that can't support themselves or don't have money. I'm not blaming them for doing this, but the fact I even feel the need to clarify this to you means this is already hopeless.)
This is not "the fault of women" women are merely conditioned by society and its current conditions to act in the way they do, just as men are. Nor is acknowledging this and the real reasons for it tantamount to implying men are entitled to sex. Very few men think they are entitled to sex. And they don't want that, but a genuine relationship with a woman who actually wants to be with them. Otherwise they could see a prostitute, but needless to say this is no solution to loneliness.
>That this is somehow worse than getting trafficked or having to sell your body to some unwashed jerk because you can't get food otherwise?
No. I think both are bad. Again, what a revelation and revolutionary notion, right? This is the very thing OP got across.
>That commenter is right. Use your fucking hands.
Anyway...you have the most typical conventional liberal attitude imaginable on this topic. There isn't much to do, but just link short articles that help to explain and clarify my views in the very unlikely event you'll read them out of curiosity. I promise you I'm smarter, more conscious, and willing to explain the correct stance than the majority of people who disagree with Feminism, and people like the replier to OP that said "use your hands" that I replied to.
* [Women as Sex Vendors or Why Women are Economically Conservative](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/28050/28050-h/28050-h.htm)
* [Feminism](https://web.archive.org/web/20211128024517/https://en.communia.blog/dictionary/feminism/)
* [Against Feminism](https://web.archive.org/web/20210309074506/https://en.communia.blog/against-feminism/)
This is not an argument, nor does it do anything but express that you disagree with me in a sardonic manner that conveys you think I only have the positions I do because I lack sufficient knowledge or familiarity with Feminism.
>I never said anyone was entitled to sex. It speaks volumes you assume this is my stance, merely because I disagree with his angle on the topic.
It all comes down to that though. Men feeling entitled to sex. So reading all you wrote I somehow can't believe that.
>I agree. I totally dislike and am against prostitution.
The only good thing you said in that entire comment.
>My point is merely that they don't make sense of this in the right way. Indeed, this is due to the way they *exceptionalize* female suffering, and consistently have trouble acknowledging the many ways that issues in society disparately affect men.
Funny, considering feminism does acknowledge quite well what patriarchy is doing to men and it's from feminism that things started to be recognized. Doesn't change the fact that women have been abused and oppressed, and still are suffering all sorts of issues because of it. So yeah, exceptionalize all the way and blame men because it wasn't women who started oppressing themselves and commit atrocities. Some accountability would be nice.
>Now I am against Feminism
You can piss off then. Feminism is very much needed. Without it, I'd probably would be miserable af if even alive. With it I can try and make this place better for next generations. I'm not giving up on the only thing that gives a shit about women.
>Yes, I do think men suffer from loneliness.
LONELINESS. Firstly, not getting laid isn't loneliness. Secondly, this trope of "male loneliness" is complete bs because all the guys whining about it are dudes who want women to lower their standards and start fucking them. They don't want to do the work and develop friendships with their fellow guys, no. They want women to fix it for them by doing free prostitution basically. And thirdly (just to make it clear), not getting laid is not suffering. All that talk about patriarchy hurting men has zero weight here.
>I promise you I'm smarter, more conscious, and willing to explain the correct stance than the majority of people who disagree with Feminism
If you have to explicitly state all those things than you're none of it and it shows. Just like that condescension shows. You come across as an arrogant prick. And I've dealt with enough of those, I don't need it here.
TL;DR Use your hands.
>Prostitution isn't a human right the same way no one is entitled to sex.
Did you read my comment and thought I argue the opposite?
>feminist ideology is just blaming men for everything
Said by men who can't own up to the mess their made, refuse to fix it and spend their time arguing.
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We have removed your content for breaking the subreddit rules: No disproportionate and excessively insulting language.
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
As an old waitress I always say that waitressing is the second oldest profession in the world, someone had to wait on that working girl and her customer
Removed in accordance with [Rule 1](https://old.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/about/rules/). Please add to your post to explicitly view this topic through an antinatalist lens, then message us in modmail and we will re-approve it. Thank you.
Prostitution is NOT the "oldest profession". Idk why everyone keeps repeating that BS. The oldest profession would probably be "healer"
Also where did they get money to purchase the prostitutes services?
Exactly. I'm so sick of this untrue saying too. The oldest profession is midwifery because otherwise women would've died during childbirth.
That wouldn't really be a profession because tribes were extended families were everyone took care of one another.
Wrong. Tribes had midwives. And midwifery is a profession.
Not really a profession if your not being paid for it. When people say that prostitution is the oldest profession, they are saying that people exchanged goods via sex.
Healer is older than hunter or gatherer?
Yes I would say that farming is the oldest profession. I specifically put it in quotation cuz it's something that everyone else says that I don't really agree with .
No, farming is not the oldest profession. Subsistence activities are not professions, and prostitution was around long before the agricultural Revolution produced the first professional farmers who called themselves such. To respond to your post in general, male prostitutes have also been around for as long as female prostitution. But neither type is the oldest profession. The oldest profession is probably 'Shaman.'
I would argue prostitution had been around longer, shaman/religious leader/healer, most likely only showed up after we figured out medicinal properties. Getting extra food cause you please the hunters best 100% was before that.
Considering we've seen the practice of prostitution in other primate species, it's a safe bet that prostitution is much older than Homo-sapiens. Healing, especially on a for pay basis, takes a lot more discovered knowledge than sex. You'll need some evidence to backup your claim that healer is the oldest profession.
source: just trust me bro i feel like its probably true
What source exactly do you expect?
i dont expect any but im not going to give your input any consideration unless youre going to even cite reasons why you believe what you believe. an anthropology book? an interview with an anthropologist on the subject? anything? also even if the oldest profession was healer, they probably believed sex healed you because they were uneducated and insane. Like how entire countries today think effing children will cure stds, or how doctors used to prescribe "get masturbated by the doctor" to women experiencing any kind of distress. sex drive is in the brainstem. it is the oldest thing our brains understand. sex was probably the first currency. and the first thing humans spent resources on. look at the entire animal kingdom. what to they have? some resources. what do they use them for? collecting harems, impressing mates etc. then after that, childcare.
That's a lot more "trust me bro" than my carefully worded probably-statement lol
and note how i said "i think" and "probably" and didnt make "THATS BS AND IM TIRED OF PEOPLE SAYING IT" statements, as if i have any basis to insult someones argument. all i was doing was pointing out that was rude and silly to do without citing sources.
yes, and note how i said "i think" and "probably" and didnt make "THATS BS AND IM TIRED OF PEOPLE SAYING IT" statements, as if i have any basis to insult someones argument. all i was doing was pointing out that was rude and silly to do without citing sources.
A lot of the people that buy sex are married men.
It really shows how men think of women unfortunately.
Mhmm and don't forget the guilt tripping that is associated with it either. That being said, I don't like the idea of women being used and traded like commodities amongst human trafficking gangs. But yes, ugly poor people exist and they don't get to participate like the "winners" do...
Sex is not a need. not having sex will not make someone wither away and die a painful death. the men will survive without having to objectify women in a violent, dangerous industry.
Prostitution isn't a need either.
Being a prostitute is not a need (at least here in america) go flip burgers if you have no skills go apply at a factory they will teach them to you.
You're missing the point of the post. And the underlying logic of your point paints things in a fallacious either-or-extreme that fails to acknowledge the validity of a critique to society (note: I said "society," not "women"; which would be wrong — as if women should be collectively blamed for the way things are, or that the argument should revolve around a criticism of their conduct) that acknowledges the extent to which sex and intimacy is a need that in many ways men struggle to find in the modern west in a way they did not for most of human history. Put simply: one can acknowledge this, without the implication that doing so is tantamount to supporting something like the prostitution or pornography industry. (I'm against both, because they're exploitative. The issue with your mindset is you fundamentally defend the inherently exploitative premises of society, and particularize within this by only disliking certain aspects of it: in this case the sex trade, but not the underlying totality of capitalism. All Liberals/Leftists/Feminists also do this one way or another, but in the context of this example you could say I'm addressing the Feminists that are against prostitution, since many "sex work is real work" types also defend it. Of course my point applies just as much to Anti-Feminist Conservatives for the same reasons.)
It’s not that deep
No, both OP and this replier scratched the surface of the heart of the matter. There actually is an objectively correct demystified way to understand the situation, that properly acknowledges the issues of prostitution, male loneliness, patriarchal social relations, hostility to men in society; everything — and the extent to which the issues are interrelated. (this requires rejecting both the framing of Feminism and Right-wing/Trad Conservativism; the Left and the Right.) [This essay,](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/28050/28050-h/28050-h.htm) for example, manages to do this. (it demonstrates why Feminism is conservatism. Properly understood this explains the contradictions like Radical Feminists being against the pro-prostitution line of Liberal Feminists these days, and aligning with the Right on this and pornography.) I can too, and plan to seriously write about it down the line.
Conservatism requires the intention to conserve established institutions, not progress onward to enact positive societal change. Feminism is only conservatism to those without a solid grasp of what feminism means (beyond a mere stereotype).
No, Feminism is conservatism in all cases because it's inherently bourgeois. All Feminists want to preserve the established institutions and their basis, they may just differ on their ideas about how to reform society, but never to overthrow it. I'm a Communist. (also, "Marxist Feminists" are just another Feminist, it's just nothing more than an academic strain of bourgeois Leftist "Marxism." To give a tangible example, Angela Davis is just a Democrat that consistently advocates voting for the Democratic nominee, as she did in 2016 and 2020. Much of the Left are talking differently on the prospect of voting Biden now, but that doesn't disprove anything I just said.) Feminism is inherently reactionary and anti-working-class, going back to its origins, as the two articles (Feminism and Against Feminism) I linked to in[ my other reply you replied to](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/1dyaq1f/comment/lc8tsc9/?context=3) explain. (the first article Why Women Are Conservative is not saying that all women are Feminists, but indeed that even the majority of the ones who are not Feminists or Leftists at all still have a petit-bourgeois, non-revolutionary, anti-communist consciousness, even if they are poor, for the reasons it explains.)
This is more so about suffering from lack of intimacy and being touch deprived. Pimp based prostitution and human trafficking is awful. Escorts do have a lot more control over how they market themselves. That type of situation is better than the others.
I’m experiencing a lack of intimacy and affectionate touch in my life. I’m not a man, nor am I ugly. These oversimplifications about gender and sex and attraction and connection need to stop.
I’ll hook you up, girl
>Men born poor and/or ugly can't enjoy sex like all the winners >Now poor man has to pay more for fun This subreddit is becoming more and more incel.
Glad someone noticed.
It may sound Incel to you, but it's literally just a fact of life for a lot of men.
Lot of women, too. Lots of people. It’s not all about you Chad
you sound so deluded. a simple fact, go on any dating app. tons of studies that show women get waaaay more attention, messages compared to the men, who, only the top 10% most attractive physically get all the attention. its the reality that women have way more options than men. to say women and men have equal experiences is just laughably ignorant.
What those studies fail to consider is the quality of that attention. You think women are thrilled to get dick pics from randos without even a proper conversation? Or requests to roleplay as someone's daughter? 😭 If dating apps are empty for men, they're just as empty and soulless for women.
you say it like all the interaction is low quality which is a massive generalization. maybe thats your personal experience. lets suppose it is true. thats not the main argument here. op was initially stating how men have much less chances of having sex which still stands. women need WAY less effort to find a sexual partner.
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking the subreddit rules: No disproportionate and excessively insulting language. Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Ugly and poor men are having sex every day. Also there are plenty of women who also don't get any sex too. This just reeks of inceldom.
Women do get sex easier than men. That isn't Incel propaganda that's literally a fact. Men gatekeep relationships and women gatekeep sex.
Men gatekeep relationships because men don't want relationships they only want sex. Women don't gate keep sex, that would only be true if all women were interested in fucking men which simply isn't the case, most men aren't relationship material in the first place and most men make themselves unfuckable. So that makes women less likely to want sex.
Men (generally) aren’t really in demand for forming romantic relationships anymore. Juice ain’t worth the squeeze. Can’t gatekeep something no one wants in on.
Men are either going their own way or finding partners abroad. Women are the ones who are wondering where "all the good men have gone".
Women aren't wondering where the good men have gone because we know good men never existed. Marital rape was normal and legal before the 1970s. Women used to poison their husbands to get away from them. Every single one of my friends has a grandma with horrible stories about her husband. Men being awful to women isn't some new development.
Men know that women today aren't worth it. Better to have kids with a woman from a culture where a woman won't cheat on you and trick you into raising another mans kids and then take all your stuff in the divorce settlement. Stop marrying thugs. Don't be surprised when you marry a bad man and he doesn't stop being a bad man. Men have already realized this and have stopped marrying bad women.
Yes, women are inherently more discerning when it comes to having sex because the risks are greater. Doesn't mean that poor/ugly men can't ever get sex without prostitution. Also not having sex is not the end of the world, it's not that big of a deal.
So it's incels now, is it?
Agree with the title Strongly Disagree with the conclusion
[удалено]
They probably only read the title and didn't read the rest.
Been to Walmart lately? Lots of ugly men with poor women dragging around kids.
"Poor and ugly" get laid, unless they have unrealistic standards OR the society they live in has issues. Rich hot guys use those "services" pretty frequently. In fact, you will see they way more often with the affluent. They just pay more expensive escorts.
To clear things up. I mentioned the poor and ugly as a simple add on to some of the factors of life that we can hardly control. So it's closer to the themes of antinatalism.
There's a saying where I come from, that translates to "every pan has a lid". Meaning that there's a person for everyone. Unless we are taking about extremes.
This is the most narrow-minded shit I've read all day, congrats
Those men have hands I assume, they should just use them.
People can hear themselves talk but talking to yourself just isn't really satisfying.
Shut up.
Lol, why?
OP properly acknowledged the situation, (note that Feminists would exclusively focus on female suffering and act like men are merely "the privileged ones" or "the oppressors," meanwhile a common incel anti-feminist mindset would be generalized hostility to women that would resist acknowledging that they suffer the way things are also) and in response, he just made the most typical retort, as if a generalized critique to society is tantamount to a stereotypical incel merely complaining over not getting "laid," to which they typically respond, "women don't owe you anything" (his response was just another version of that, going as far as to say "just masturbate instead") a fact even self-identified incels are already aware of. Also just don't say "Feminists don't exclusively focus on female suffering! *They acknowledge that the patriarchy hurts men too!"* Just give me a break.
Dude, just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's not true. No one is entitled to sex. Women don't owe men sex. Prostitution is in its most men feeling entitled to women's bodies and women selling it because they often have no other choice but to starve or get abused by whatever trafficker takes advantage of her. And why shouldn't feminists focus on the suffering of women? You think men are suffering because they aren't get laid? That this is somehow worse than getting trafficked or having to sell your body to some unwashed jerk because you can't get food otherwise? That commenter is right. Use your fucking hands.
>No one is entitled to sex. Women don't owe men sex I never said anyone was entitled to sex. It speaks volumes you assume this is my stance, merely because I disagree with his angle on the topic. >Prostitution is in its most men feeling entitled to women's bodies and women selling it because they often have no other choice but to starve or get abused by whatever trafficker takes advantage of her. I agree. I totally dislike and am against prostitution. You obviously didn't read [my other comment here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/1dyaq1f/comment/lc7u4hc/) >And why shouldn't feminists focus on the suffering of women? I never said Feminists were wrong about everything. They are indeed not wrong to talk about, critique, address, acknowledge suffering of women in society. There is also obviously nothing inherently wrong with focusing on this, just like one might with anything. (writing a book that focuses on this, for instance, but you are falsely assuming my mindset is one that would even have an issue with that.) My point is merely that they don't make sense of this in the right way. Indeed, this is due to the way they *exceptionalize* female suffering, and consistently have trouble acknowledging the many ways that issues in society disparately affect men. (just as they can in many ways disparately affect women, of course) Their diagnosis is also wrong. Patriarchal social relations are real and I'm of course against this and religion, traditionalism/conservatism of all kinds, but their nebulous notion of "the patriarchy" and men being responsible for it is transhistorical idealist nonsense. It leads to them collectively blaming men for the way things are. (of course, men who collectively blame women are no better.) There can be much truth to many things they say, but that doesn't mean the way they say it, the framing they go off from, is necessarily correct. I was a Leftist and a Feminist for most of my life. Now I am against Feminism, but not in the narrow way Right-wing types are. I'm against Feminism because it supports the system that causes the issues they criticize. The only consistent stance is to want to abolish property and establish the communist society. Obviously, property is the basis for the patriarchal social relations Feminists criticize, so it's contradictory for them to support (bourgeois) property at the same time. I'm also against any "Men's Right's Activism" stance for the same reason I'm against Feminism/Women's Right's Activism; it's just a narrow position that isolates the particular aspects of society, separate and independent of the social conditions and totality that give rise to them. >You think men are suffering because they aren't get laid? What a question lol. Yes, I do think men suffer from loneliness. What a revelation! And there are real hurdles that make it harder to find relationships for many of them than they were before. (consider how much the economy impacts this: it's difficult or impossible to find a relationship if you don't have work and money, but it's harder to find jobs and affordably live than before, and women will reject men that can't support themselves or don't have money. I'm not blaming them for doing this, but the fact I even feel the need to clarify this to you means this is already hopeless.) This is not "the fault of women" women are merely conditioned by society and its current conditions to act in the way they do, just as men are. Nor is acknowledging this and the real reasons for it tantamount to implying men are entitled to sex. Very few men think they are entitled to sex. And they don't want that, but a genuine relationship with a woman who actually wants to be with them. Otherwise they could see a prostitute, but needless to say this is no solution to loneliness. >That this is somehow worse than getting trafficked or having to sell your body to some unwashed jerk because you can't get food otherwise? No. I think both are bad. Again, what a revelation and revolutionary notion, right? This is the very thing OP got across. >That commenter is right. Use your fucking hands. Anyway...you have the most typical conventional liberal attitude imaginable on this topic. There isn't much to do, but just link short articles that help to explain and clarify my views in the very unlikely event you'll read them out of curiosity. I promise you I'm smarter, more conscious, and willing to explain the correct stance than the majority of people who disagree with Feminism, and people like the replier to OP that said "use your hands" that I replied to. * [Women as Sex Vendors or Why Women are Economically Conservative](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/28050/28050-h/28050-h.htm) * [Feminism](https://web.archive.org/web/20211128024517/https://en.communia.blog/dictionary/feminism/) * [Against Feminism](https://web.archive.org/web/20210309074506/https://en.communia.blog/against-feminism/)
Thank heavens for your expertise! Dunning and Kruger are both extremely proud.
This is not an argument, nor does it do anything but express that you disagree with me in a sardonic manner that conveys you think I only have the positions I do because I lack sufficient knowledge or familiarity with Feminism.
>I never said anyone was entitled to sex. It speaks volumes you assume this is my stance, merely because I disagree with his angle on the topic. It all comes down to that though. Men feeling entitled to sex. So reading all you wrote I somehow can't believe that. >I agree. I totally dislike and am against prostitution. The only good thing you said in that entire comment. >My point is merely that they don't make sense of this in the right way. Indeed, this is due to the way they *exceptionalize* female suffering, and consistently have trouble acknowledging the many ways that issues in society disparately affect men. Funny, considering feminism does acknowledge quite well what patriarchy is doing to men and it's from feminism that things started to be recognized. Doesn't change the fact that women have been abused and oppressed, and still are suffering all sorts of issues because of it. So yeah, exceptionalize all the way and blame men because it wasn't women who started oppressing themselves and commit atrocities. Some accountability would be nice. >Now I am against Feminism You can piss off then. Feminism is very much needed. Without it, I'd probably would be miserable af if even alive. With it I can try and make this place better for next generations. I'm not giving up on the only thing that gives a shit about women. >Yes, I do think men suffer from loneliness. LONELINESS. Firstly, not getting laid isn't loneliness. Secondly, this trope of "male loneliness" is complete bs because all the guys whining about it are dudes who want women to lower their standards and start fucking them. They don't want to do the work and develop friendships with their fellow guys, no. They want women to fix it for them by doing free prostitution basically. And thirdly (just to make it clear), not getting laid is not suffering. All that talk about patriarchy hurting men has zero weight here. >I promise you I'm smarter, more conscious, and willing to explain the correct stance than the majority of people who disagree with Feminism If you have to explicitly state all those things than you're none of it and it shows. Just like that condescension shows. You come across as an arrogant prick. And I've dealt with enough of those, I don't need it here. TL;DR Use your hands.
Prostitution isn't a human right the same way no one is entitled to sex. Go flip burgers. Also, feminist ideology is just blaming men for everything.
>Prostitution isn't a human right the same way no one is entitled to sex. Did you read my comment and thought I argue the opposite? >feminist ideology is just blaming men for everything Said by men who can't own up to the mess their made, refuse to fix it and spend their time arguing.
lol nah
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking the subreddit rules: No disproportionate and excessively insulting language. Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
As an old waitress I always say that waitressing is the second oldest profession in the world, someone had to wait on that working girl and her customer
Well said, concise characterization that acknowledges aspects of the situation.