Hypocrisy against women

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Should I erase my contributions to your thread on the grounds of irrelevancy?

Well, if you start doing that sort of thing, you won't have any posts on the forum.

Well, it's caused by an extra-large horizon.

“Oh golly I’m hot today.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhknFgI8tJY

For a second I thought you'd posted a clip from the wonderful British comedy 'One foot in the grave', but I was sorely mistaken.
So unfunny I nearly went into a coma.

[Walker]

For a second I thought you'd posted a clip from the wonderful British comedy 'One foot in the grave', but I was sorely mistaken.
So unfunny I nearly went into a coma.

This is a bit more lively.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW-enbDAsAg

[Ghost]

I've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult. What is wrong with a woman having a lot of sex... even if she does it for money? So what? It's business. If a man did it, would HE be a whore... and would that be bad? Or would HE be a good businessman?

A lot of men WANT whores, yet they speak of them in such disparaging terms.

Also, how is it that so many men want their woman to be sexually unlimited like a "personal whore", yet they will still insult such behavior in women in general?

Furthermore, men often hurl the label at women they don't even know, as if it's simply the worst insult they can think of.

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems archaic and primitive and ignorant. Can anyone here offer more perspective and personal opinion about this?

Men want a classy woman who will be a whore only with them. A proper lady, whom once behind closed doors, can be the woman whom can be open to anything imaginable that they both may desire. They never want to "turn a whore into a housewife" because if she is so willing with him, he can assume with other men too. Also, who is to say that lust for random c*ck will stop once married? I know of a woman who gave blowjobs for rides when she needed to go somewhere, my brother fooled around with her, would he want her as a girlfriend? Hell no. That woman was with other men he knew too, she was easy.
My brother did chose a girlfriend that for many years was his friend, and that woman's friend, and he didn't want to be with her at first because she was easy too, and just as I had expected---she cheated on him.

There isn't anything wrong with a woman or man wanting a lot of sex, but if they ever want to be treated like they are not a piece of meat, they will act like they are not a piece of meat. That is why the sexes in general will be called "whores" when they are only so much human as their genitalia makes them out to be.
I had a friend for a decade that used to be a stripper, she had a boyfriend that was with her and respected her. She could make $500/day some days and was a person you wouldn't ever guess was a pole dancer. She didn't fit the stereotypical trash that would post on tinder or instagram all their scantily clad body-whoring for comments on their supposed beauty. Because she is classy, not a whore. Not a commodity except for onstage, and that is only business.

For the most part, everyone loves sex and would have it often if they could. But I consider whom most people call "whore" if one would be in bed with them would likely walk out with regret, and possibly an STI (keep in mind most infections are without symptoms and many are not tested for unless asked for specifically).
Being easy as a ride from point A to B, and being a receptacle for every Tom, Dick and Harry, or nameless man, doesn't have much value or respect. That goes for men too. There are good women I know, myself included (humble right? hahaha) that if we know a man sleeps around with any one who will want him, we won't touch him. May be a friend, but for the most part can't respect him so won't want to be with him.
How a person carries themselves and respects themselves would determine the respect and value they can garner from others.
A whore is just a play thing.

[Lacewing]

...

I agree with what you wrote.

What I find messed up is how the same men who WANT a whore, look down on her for being one. A person either has to stay away from it if they despise it, or have a respectful mindset about it. The attitude of USING or abusing a flesh-and-blood being (a sacred soul) and then categorizing THEM as trash is more disgusting than any person's act or reason for using their own body in whatever way they choose.

Furthermore, many men will categorize any woman as a whore if they simply feel contempt for her for any reason. I've had it done to me. It's absurd and primitive -- these are likely very sexually frustrated men who are angry that women's bodies are so off-limit to them. So maybe the man feels more in control by accusing women of being whores as an excuse for why he's not with one. The women simply aren't "good enough"! Yeah, THAT'S what it is!

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually "oneness" does not imply "whoring" as actually right considering all sexuality is "transfer". A person loses, or projects, a part of themselve through sexual intercourse effectively dividing themselves.

When the people take care of eachother this projection brings back an inherent unity to the situation. Divide, rejoin. However that is not the case with "whoring". The other person either leaves, becomes unavailabe, etc. causing a further degree of division.

People's emotional states become divided between extremes of ups/down causing instability.
The offspring are not unified with there parents.
Etc.

Sexuality is a process of divergence and convergence. When a person loses themselves to another, and the other "leaves" or does not maintain a reciprocal relationship, then a process of fragmentation occurs.

Sexuality is rooted in creation as well, when the creative aspect is taken out (maintaining the relationship, children, etc.) then "unity" is lost as "unity" observes a perpetual creation through time. Sexuality is "joining" as well.

So in sex a part of oneself is lost, and joined to another. Joining it to multiple people just causes further fragmentation, physically, emotionally, etc.

You realize you’re making all of this up, right?

Why is it divide rather than build? Why is it loss rather than gain? Do you think your gene/energy pool needs to be kept “pure” in its initial state? What if you have a defect that can only be transformed through the energy exchange with others?

I do not see any harmful effects to me, nor detriment to my life, from my “exchanges” with others throughout my life. (What kind of messed up dynamic would that be?) Exchanging love and having fun seem like sacred and respectful celebrations of this life of forms and sensation. A person’s “intent” and “spirit” seem to be key on how they are integrating and balancing all of it. Being genuine and present in the moment is a wonderful thing -- which must surely be a healing elixir for us on many levels. Connection seems totally natural and efficient to me.

You change the word "whore" with "free spirit" but there is no freedom in lust...it is just bondage and slavery to an ever dying world. It is justified and "true" when transmuted to love, when it is transmuted to creation.

What you call "fun" is just low grade hedonism. A higher and fuller pleasure, one for which we (including myself), should all strive for is one of agape. Lust can be transmuted to this, but observing the human condition as strictly one of "playing with oneself" is strictly a degradation of not just the "body" (the temple of the divine spark, the "logos" or "atman") but a degradation of any sense of true real love.

We are all raised, both men and women, to view the other as an object of gratification...but it does not work when takes the time to look into the other's eyes, eyes which embody the divine sphere of being itself.

Exchanging "love" is sacred, and "fun" is sacred, but if you need to use the other person's body to do it...what type of love is that? There is nothing genuine about "whoring"...it is one extreme over another (prudishness). Both are harmful...both are wrong.

Those "connections"...are they really connections when you are dividing the human constitution? To please the body, but to forget the "immortal soul"? You are fooling yourself.

If you cannot accept the person you are with fully, faults and all, to suffer with them...to feel joy with them then your connection is not real.

Each person is infinite as an image of Divine Reason, a universe unto themselves, and that must be embraced. To "whore' around...is to avoid the infinite and true within each person...to run away.


You want to separate eros from agape from philios...but they are all one and the same in the relationship between man and woman. Sex is valuable. Sex is the closest thing to divinity we can observe. Why? Because it is when two opposite join and "create".

You argue for death.

You argue for distraction.

You claim "value" and "love", but what you argue for is desolation. If all you can do is offer an orgasm, first you are shorting and limiting yourself and what you can offer...second you are just destroying sex by idolizing it. All value is not just found in proper timing, but keeping the self in its proper placement. If you don't believe me, then just look at sex itself...if it is not "naturally" creative by nature...then why need birth control?

[Lacewing]

You change the word "whore" with "free spirit"...

No, I was responding to the fact that you have used both descriptions for me, as if they are somehow referring to the same thing...which they are not, of course. I am free-spirited in certain ways -- very honorable ways I assure you -- and I have never been a whore.

What you call "fun" is just low grade hedonism.

No it's not. You're projecting your distorted and limited view onto me as usual. You would be much more honorable if you stopped acting like you know me, and stopped speaking as if you speak some kind of ultimate cosmic truth about love and fun.

There is more to life and potential than what you know and have experienced.

We are all raised, both men and women, to view the other as an object of gratification...but it does not work when takes the time to look into the other's eyes, eyes which embody the divine sphere of being itself.

I agree... I just don't think that all people go down that path, regardless of the influences around them. I have never been the kind of person to view anyone as an object to be used. I DO look into a being's eyes, and I cherish their soul/spirit.

Exchanging "love" is sacred, and "fun" is sacred,

Agreed!

...but if you need to use the other person's body to do it...what type of love is that?

Well, it seems that there's a range of what people are capable of -- probably lots of degrees and shades and levels of love. Like anything with humans... some have more clarity and authenticity and ability... while others are more muddled and shallow and needy. I'm sure that range can exist in ANY interaction.

Those "connections"...are they really connections when you are dividing the human constitution? To please the body, but to forget the "immortal soul"? You are fooling yourself.

First, let me say that it's tiring dealing with your projections because it takes effort to deal with those before getting to the clarity beyond them.

Yes, my connections with people and animals are very real... and they are experienced in the present moment when they occur... they are not dependent on the past or future... and they are not for the purpose of using anyone in any way. They are truly motivated by love.

If you cannot accept the person you are with fully, faults and all, to suffer with them...to feel joy with them then your connection is not real.

Degrees to that... like everything. And lots of scenarios for it reasonably turning out in all sorts of ways.

You want to separate eros from agape from philios...but they are all one and the same in the relationship between man and woman.

Me? You seem to be the one claiming what the separations and distinctions are.

Sex is the closest thing to divinity we can observe. Why? Because it is when two opposite join and "create".

I think there are lots of ways of co-creation and joining that have nothing to do with sex. Spiritual doesn't require physical, but doesn't exclude it either.

You argue for death.

You argue for distraction.

What are you talking about? More projections? Please stop. I don't want to wade through so much of your false crap. You really should get clear of that.

You claim "value" and "love", but what you argue for is desolation. If all you can do is offer an orgasm, first you are shorting and limiting yourself and what you can offer...second you are just destroying sex by idolizing it. All value is not just found in proper timing, but keeping the self in its proper placement.

WHO are you talking about? This isn't me... so I can only wonder if you speak of some part of yourself? Ranting from frustration? If so, again, you really should get clear of that.

[Scott Mayers]

Mistaken initial quote by the wrong person. I meant the OP and so below is still the same comment.

[Scott Mayers]

I've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult. What is wrong with a woman having a lot of sex... even if she does it for money? So what? It's business. If a man did it, would HE be a whore... and would that be bad? Or would HE be a good businessman?

A lot of men WANT whores, yet they speak of them in such disparaging terms.

Also, how is it that so many men want their woman to be sexually unlimited like a "personal whore", yet they will still insult such behavior in women in general?

Furthermore, men often hurl the label at women they don't even know, as if it's simply the worst insult they can think of.

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems archaic and primitive and ignorant. Can anyone here offer more perspective and personal opinion about this?

Male 'whores' can't bear their own children but CAN be held liable regardless of choice AFTER the fact of pregnancy. Female 'whores' are usually about women who utilize the same kind of thinking as the male 'whores' but gain relative power as being classed 'victimhood' should they not like the men they are with or 'vulnerably' unliable to predatory behaviors.

I rarely here this word now but "slut" is more popular and often come more from women against other women competitively. The males like this are rare and disturbed but due to their kinds of more noticeability to be harmful, the class, men, are treated as 'owning' the causes of harm against women this way.

I've seen this on both sexes. Oddly, where females do this, today they more often act bipolar by LIKING abusive men AND embracing vulnerability that gets others to DEFEND their honor. I've known such women who literally try to get their men to fight or demean them for being pussies.

The genetic nature of women to require more local protections (say of pregnancy) while men to be transient, and dominant in order to be selected (or have the better chance of being selected) make women who attempt to have both transient/dominance AND stationary/subdominance behaviors are internally treated as being 'hypocritical' and why they are targeted more often. Men who are like this behave more consistent in their behavior by being transient/dominant but are not required to be stationary/subdominant. In fact, contrary to the lipservice of women claiming to be less discriminatory, they often only prefer males who are stationary/subdominant as 'friends' only. The proof is in the population pool: men are preferred by women to be taller and more physically strong and, where rape isn't involved, successfully have more children to keep this distinction genetically true.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's not just men. Women are just as bad when it comes to bad-mouthing other women.

[Logik]

I thnink the world needs more whores. Both male and female.

We have contraceptives and STD screening now - who cares? Fuck away.

At least that way by the time it comes to settle down, you will know exactly what you do and don't like or want in a partner.

[Greta]

I thnink the world needs more whores. Both male and female.

We have contraceptives now - who cares? Fuck away.

I don't care either, but it's worth spelling out that women too need to consider which men are most likely to engage in extracurricular behaviour, and whether faithfulness/ownership is essential. If a couple of sexually busy types get together, ideally they'd either give each other a pass to fool around until they become old or bored with carrying on.

It is a funny thing: humans are incredibly interfering. It's probably a major part of our success, but I think most of us prefer others to MYOB.

[Logik]

It's probably a major part of our success, but I think most of us prefer others to MYOB.

Not probably - most defnitely. Risk management and control go hand-in-hand. You identify problem - you address or mitigate problem with whatever means necessary or available.

Is just that some people get a tad over-zealous trying to fix things that don't need fixing, or use a jackhammer where a scalpel is required.

Whoring (male and female) without contraception is a problem. More mouths to feed. Population growth, orphanas, single mothers - the whole lot of negative systemic effects in society.

But we have contraceptives now. So the negative side-effects can be controlled. If the whores just took responsibilty for their actions.

If they don't - society will stigmatize them. Which is a far more crude and imprecise form of control.
And in the extreme cases - such behaviour can be outlawed and even punishable by death. e.g Islamic states.

[gaffo]

I've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult. What is wrong with a woman having a lot of sex... even if she does it for money? So what? It's business. If a man did it, would HE be a whore... and would that be bad? Or would HE be a good businessman?

A lot of men WANT whores, yet they speak of them in such disparaging terms.

Also, how is it that so many men want their woman to be sexually unlimited like a "personal whore", yet they will still insult such behavior in women in general?

Furthermore, men often hurl the label at women they don't even know, as if it's simply the worst insult they can think of.

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems archaic and primitive and ignorant. Can anyone here offer more perspective and personal opinion about this?

i think its instinctive, men never can know if their woman's kid is there"s (woman always knows her kid is her's). and so (kowing it take time and money to support a woman, the man will try to find one that will not cheat on him - for he never can know for sure it the kid is really his (DNA testing now of course he can, but our DNA predates the DNA tests for such things).

[gaffo]

Uhh...men are whores too.

Do you refer to them that way -– or mostly just women? Honestly.

no man is called a "whore" that is a gender noun.

men that are similar to whores are called Bastards, Players, Dogs, etc.

[gaffo]

I've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult. What is wrong with a woman having a lot of sex... even if she does it for money? So what? It's business. If a man did it, would HE be a whore... and would that be bad? Or would HE be a good businessman?

Objectively, it’s purely a descriptive term with which the woman would likely agree.

Purely descriptive means there’s no judgment, no emotion, no baggage, no wish for harm, no hypocrisy. It merely describes the person in terms of activity. Butcher, baker, candle-stick maker, and Tinker with no S before T.

The term whore, in the objective sense most commonly used, means one who rents their body to another to fulfill partial terms of a verbal contract. In many places these are illegal verbal contracts.

If the renter is put into that illegal contract situation because she is a literal physical slave (coercion), then that is another topic. As a slave she could be used for all kinds of things, it’s just that whoring probably brings in more money for the master.

A southern border wall on the US would eliminate a lot of slave-victims.

no, the term "whore" is not objective in description (that would be promiscuous).

whore is an insulting term. as it should be perhaps?