19th century classic literature with its sentimentalism gave us this trope of a "wh8re with a heart of gold" and it has been poisoning the debate on "fallen women" ever since.
Now 19th century folks did have an excuse for simping. There was a lot of poverty and basically no age of consent laws. Poor families would sell their daughters into pr8stitution as young as 9 or 10 in some cases. Obviously, the children were victims in these type of situations and the pity was deserved. There was also little in the way of workplace harassment prevention and some poor governess or a maidservant or a circus girl without social status or connections could be easily seduced and often pressured into s8xual relations with her male employer. Some chose it out of their own free will, of course, but the consequences, such as pregnancy could cost her her reputation and employment opportunities, with pr8stitution as the only way out.
Now this all is in the past. We have laws protecting women and children. Sometimes these laws go so far as disadvantaging men, like workplace harassment rules in some countries.
OnlyF8ns "girls" aren't pressured into anything, they consider themselves "models" and entrepreneurs. They freely choose to degrade themselves online for money. They engage in wh8redom because it's an easy way to earn, unlike some boring office job, taking care of unruly kids at school or changing bedpans in the hospital. These types of employment aren't really glamorous, but it's an honest way to make a living nonetheless.
These girls also aren't in danger of starvation because nowadays if you don't want to/can't work you can easily get some welfare. Hence, again, it's their free choice.
They deserve absolutely no pity and yes, they should be shamed for it. Women who defend them online basically defend harl8try and come across as lacking any sort of morals. You know the type who cheats on her boyfriend and then expects him to raise her baby as his own.
Men who sign up for these services are losers, and those who defend it are simps. Seriously, she isn't a damsel in distress, she is someone who sells pictures of her b8888ole to guys for money.
It's really embarrassing.
My $0.02 is this. It depends upon the why. If like you said they did it to put bread on their table or so their kids could eat (Widows, not single mothers mind you.) Then I would probably, well I wouldn't say it was ok, but it would be understandable and semi tolerable. However those who went into willingly who did it without starvation staring at them. Them I consider tainted.
ReplyDeleteA guilty pleasure of mine is watching the Whatever Podcast with Brian Atlas. I saw a 45min clip last night where half a dozen girls ranging from 22 to early 30s were arguing why they deserve traditional men, but at the same time men should ignore the fact that none of them were virgins, and most of them were in the two digit body count. Not one of them were willing to consider that just like how women have things they require in a man, men have things we require in women.
All I could feel was absolute disgust at them. I remember in the old testament, a prophet was ordered by the Lord to marry a prostitute so he would know how the Lord felt about the actions of Israel. I felt sorrow for that prophet when I first read it. Now I look around where its reported that less than 5% of girls leaving college are virgins and feel nothing but disgust and rage.
Last night by the end of the 45min section I was watching, one of those girls I think actually started to understand that she had blundered badly. You could see the concern and panic on her face. She even asked what women could do to regain what they lost. But the problem is it is to late at that point. She and all the others there had been known by many men at that point. No guy even the simps no matter how they try to convince themselves otherwise want a girl who has been had by other men. She is damaged goods at that point, or in the common vernacular she is for the streets.
Frankly when I was growing up, I was brought up in the believe all women, and be a gentleman. Heck my dad pulled me aside after college and told me to consider what I could bring to the table in order to attract a woman. Today as much as I would like a wife and kids, it would take a rare woman for me to put aside the disgust I feel whenever a girl talks about the guys who came before me. Today I am at the point where if a leader ever popped up and ran on removing the right to vote from women, and restricting them to obeying their fathers or husbands I would very likely jump on board immediately. Giving women the right to vote was probably one of the biggest mistakes in human history.
So that's my $0.02 Those who have decided to act like sluts and prostitutes are what they act like. They have made their beds, let them lay in them.
As for the men who subscribe to them. Frankly I feel pity for them for the most part. Those guys aren't the slimy creepy guys that one thinks about visiting seedy strip clubs. Most, not all, but most of them are simply guys who are horribly touch-starved, haven't had a wife or girlfriends for years or decades, if ever, and this is the closest they can come to intimacy. I feel pity for them. I don't think they should be doing that, but I understand why they do.
- W
So what is the solution here? I don't think banning porn does anything productive and I'd rather law enforcement round up real criminals like thieves, rapist, pedophiles, and such. Few to none of these women will settle for any guy that simply has a job and is drug free and not any database they are not supposed to be in. And the women look dumb offering themselves for $4.95 per month along with the simps who are paying when porn is practically free online.
ReplyDeleteThe other issue is that the Christians have nothing to offer young men and I can say they never offered me anything other than dogmatic stupidity regarding human sexuality. The churches are also filled with women who have the same idiotic expectations from men as their secular sisters. You can pull up some videos by Aaron Clarey discussing this stuff.
I'm an agnostic, but okay with some of the sex stuff being kept more discrete. An exploration of the Internet Archive finds "men's magazine" content that was even earlier than Playboy. This has always been with us, it's just a matter of how puritan a society wants to be about it. I suspect even in years past not every Christian was a virgin.
Just like the poor, the wh8res will always be with us. But pr8stitution should not be made into something glorious, the way OnlySl8ts are doing it. Yes, I would absolutely forbid it. P8rn does a number on men, too, just check this website:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yourbrainonporn.com/
The solution in a normal society would obviously be early marriage. But men had always been allowed to "sow wild oats" to some degree. Modern churches basically turned old morals upside down. Men are shamed while women are told it's never their fault. Men's honour is courage, women's honour is chastity. But we live in a dishonour society nowadays.
So the churches just follow the spirit of the age, like they always have done, unfortunately.
More from the 'women are oppressed' in the West and more mature.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/i-am-not-a-pakistani-clarifies-youtuber-zara-dar-who-quit-phd-for-onlyfans-101735035152472.html
Oh yes I heard about her!!!
ReplyDelete