Considering that it costs 100$ CDN just to walk in to an FKK and 75$ for a half-hour of fun, it sounds like it doesn't take much to please you.
Do you really believe in feminism?
- Thread starter Orange_Julep
- Start date
Considering that it costs 100$ CDN just to walk in to an FKK and 75$ for a half-hour of fun, it sounds like it doesn't take much to please you.
True. But only if I by any very slim coincidence end up in an FKK. A $100 for free food and drinks for 6-8 hours and cool environment and a hottie to bang (if I like anybody there). I am in Germany right now. Been here a whole week. Already banged half a dozen girls from regular bars who asked me to hump them.
Guten Nacht!
Ouch LOLConsidering that it costs 100$ CDN just to walk in to an FKK and 75$ for a half-hour of fun, it sounds like it doesn't take much to please you.
But considering that he's such a HUNK :eyebrows: that knows how to hump :violin:and ladies in Europe are so sex hungry :hungry: he probably gets it all for free anyway :thumb: and the remaining $50 is for food and drinks.
:cheer2:
It's a very interesting story. Thanks for posting. Hard to say if he had a chance. What would have been a judge only decision? Would an other attorney get a different decision? I guess there will be an appeal. I'd be interested to hear about the consequences of the presumed rape for her. And if there is trauma, is it because of the act itself or is it induced by third parties (parents, legal advisers, psychologists)? The sentencing is not given yet, but he will suffer immense (disproportionate IMHO) consequences considering the circumstances.Your hypothesis may be good. There is an other one: the parents using her in an attempt to gain financial benefits from the school. The guy may be an idiot, just like many frats become when they meet. But this is obviously not a case that merited criminal accusation IMHO. I feel like young men will be the ones paying the most for the radical feminist vendetta. Keep us informed of developments.
Believe these valid arguments would have a more proper home in this thread: https://merb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-in-Maleism-(Off-shoot-of-he-Feminism-thread).
This should be a t-shirt. Or Merb should hand out awards to people who are able to write posts who come alive like movies.
and in NYC today..
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/gov-cuomo-reminds-nyu-students-campus-sexual-assault-law-article-1.2346102?cid=bitly
jeez things have changed a lot :lol:
https://youtu.be/dh4LikiGBrQ?t=58s
Gov. Cuomo urged college students Wednesday to take heed of the state's new law aimed at cracking down on campus sex assaults.
"Every freshman, every returning student should know the rules of behavior have changed," Cuomo said at NYU's Eisner & Lubin Auditorium on the same day students returned to classes.
"Every woman should know that — that they have more rights than they had before. And every male should know ... you're not getting away with what you got away with before."
The "Enough is Enough" legislation requires all colleges to adopt a "yes means yes" affirmative consent policy for students who engage in sexual activity.
Consent is defined under the law as a knowing, voluntary and mutual decision that's made among sex partners.
The legislation, signed into law last month, also requires campuses to distribute a "Student Bill of Rights" that informs the students of their legal rights if they are victims of a sex crime.
"Every freshman, every returning student should know the rules of behavior have changed," Cuomo said at NYU's Eisner & Lubin Auditorium on the same day students returned to classes.
"Every woman should know that — that they have more rights than they had before. And every male should know ... you're not getting away with what you got away with before."
The "Enough is Enough" legislation requires all colleges to adopt a "yes means yes" affirmative consent policy for students who engage in sexual activity.
Consent is defined under the law as a knowing, voluntary and mutual decision that's made among sex partners.
The legislation, signed into law last month, also requires campuses to distribute a "Student Bill of Rights" that informs the students of their legal rights if they are victims of a sex crime.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/gov-cuomo-reminds-nyu-students-campus-sexual-assault-law-article-1.2346102?cid=bitly
jeez things have changed a lot :lol:
https://youtu.be/dh4LikiGBrQ?t=58s
Of course I agree with this, but I still disagree with the amount taken from a macro perspective. The macro perspective does not support the idea of 10%, 20% or even 30% share in sales (here, I'd like any agency escort or indy with agency experience to chime in and confirm that unlike any of my friends, they've actually ever made more than a 60% cut - if that).
I would place the average in Montreal at 40-45% - sometimes diving into the 50% range (but then again, I really don't know the state of profit distribution in Montreal agencies that don't advertise here so this profit distribution model could still be prevalent in the less observable areas of the industry). The normal business model, excluding the "VIP" type agencies, which don't constitute a majority, has always been 50/50 until relatively recently. Compare that to any large private organization - a grocery chain, a fast food chain, a car manufacturer, Amazon - never does the profit cut of sales ever even nearly approach the 50% mark. The difference is also that in all of those industries, there is a middle man, so the cut get smaller and smaller as the final product gets closer to the end of the line: the consumer. Yet, if I try to think of industries without middlemen, it would be a business owner's dream to make a 30% margin. The only types of businesses I can actually think of that make a 40% to 50% profit on sales belong to the black market. Which is why, again, I am so strongly against the current model. If we want this industry to have any form of legitimacy, let it behave like any form of legal industry.
If you're providing a service (being an agent), provide a service and take a proportion of sales that makes sense to the business world. If you are selling a product, and you have no middleman, so you can sell your product for the highest profit gain that is supported by demand, sorry, but women are not products. If I were a legislator, this is actually where I would lay the law first. We have laws against usury practices. I don't see why we can't view this type of practice through the same lens, again, specifically taking into account the special, incomparable nature of the service provided by the "products", and taking into account that this cut does not constitute normal business practice unless you're really, really lucky. Yet, in the agency side of the sex industry, it consitutes the norm.
So let me be clearer than I have been: I'm not saying an agency managed by a woman who takes a 50% cut would be any better than an agency managed by a man taking that cut for the simple fact that a woman would be profiting. My point is that the woman delivering the service should be taking the greater cut considering the nature of the service delivered. And a greater cut like the max-observable (macro) 60%, considering what she puts into the equation (if you can entertain for a moment my argument that resource and time investment made by an agency owner is no more special than the same investments made by any other business owner), is still not acceptable. I would find a maximum of 25% acceptable, edging closer to the broader 'agent' industry margin (after all, is this not what agents claim they do?). Show me a Loblaws or a McDonald's that makes even in the neighbourhood of that cut for the millions invested, and show me how such a high cut has any relation to investment - my original point - and maybe I'll come around to the alternate position, which is the status quo position of this industry. Until someone shows me how the resource and time investments in making an agency function somehow is different than any other industry, in particular the industry of artist representation to which agencies (and many of their clients) claim to belong, I will remain convinced that current agency business practice takes advantage of women who do not have or don't know they have the skills and resources required to become their own agents.
I can't see how a fixed rate would be better than a proportion considering the huge variance in service rates. A fixed rate, to me, means a transactional profit model. You get a fee per transaction. How do you ensure that fees from the, let's call it mom-and-pop tiny agency, is coherent with the fee applied to the VIP style place? Under your model, I'm assuming the agency that charges 300 for their VIP girls makes the same dollars per transaction than the 160$ agency? Come to think of it, that sure would be nice, but wouldn't the 160$ agencies become obsolete within a week (we girls do talk to each other and the internet has taken information sharing to another level
)? I wonder how clients would feel about this model once they saw what it would actually cost them.I've made it a point to specify pretty much everywhere I could that I'm referring to the large type organizations. I'm actually pleased that there are smaller female-owned businesses that make annual revenues comparable to the sex workers they employ (what's up with this idea that they are contracted?). I won't make a joke about how these happen to be female-owned, since we don't have any idea of the size of your sample compared to the non-anecdotal broader picture. I do recognize that some of these businesses offer a needed services: they basically provide a form of infrastructure (a form of office) and structure (a form of schedule) that allow sex workers to experience some sort of stability with minimal time investment on their side. An indy's life is at minimum, divided 50/50 in making the business run and offering her service. So it's true that there is something interesting in the idea that you could give away half of your work load. Is that worth a 50% cut in earnings? Let's be generous and say 40%. Again, show me a service business where someone came up with this calculation for the value of what they were providing. And again, this relates back to my "feminism" point that the overarching business model may look like this precisely because females are not owners.
Don't assume I've read the literature on any of the points I'm providing :smile: I am simply providing my perspective as a female who knows this industry well through my own experience and that of my friends. I was not able to locate any works by Chris Brucker in Google Scholar so if you want me to read him you'll have to provide a reference.
I don't hate men. I think this situation is unacceptable. The part that is unacceptable to me, however, has nothing to do with having to go through a legal process or time to serve earned at the end of it. I find unacceptable the sex-offender for life part of it. For an 18 at the time, now 19 year old. You've basically ruined this young man's chance at a good career - i.e. his chance at becoming a responsible adult citizen. However, I don't buy into this "ah, but she didn't really say no" justification as to why he shouldn't be responsible for his behavior, regardless of whether she really definitively, assuredly, clearly, said no. I'm really tired by this whole protecting of the young male "nature" that can't tell no from yes. Especially when this kind of idiotic behavior happens in universities. Most young males would not engage in this type of behavior, period - nor would most young females be like "I'm not sure, but ok, but no (in my head)". Most young males do not think this type of behavior is ok and if they engage in it, they should learn the costs. But they shouldn't pay like adults, i.e. young males who engage in this type of behavior shouldn't be judged in the same way as grown men. And I actually feel grown men pushing for for-life sex-offender status are elected grown men who are speaking to electors who they figure as the mass of commentators on media platforms to these types of stories. And I hate them because they are instrumentalizing the issue. I value young stupid men as much as young stupid females. They will eventually pay the taxes that support me in my old people's home. And if the car insurance industry is able to view them differently than +25 year old because their science shows it's only after that age that the young stupid mind is fully developed into a mind that can't claim stupid youth as a defense, the law should adapt to the same damn science.
OJ, Chris is a she. You did not find her on google because I misspelled her name. It's Bruckert with a t, a criminologist at U. of O. I think you'll like this: http://maggiestoronto.ca/uploads/File/ManagementResearch.pdf
Women are not commodities. I think you agree with that. So why compare them with a product we buy at the supermarket? Sex workers sell services, like hair dressers, plumbers and engineers. In most businesses of a certain size selling services, customers will pay a bit more than twice the salary (or otherwise the amount otherwise determined by contract) paid to the person providing the service. In massage parlors it's usually a bit less than half the basic rate. The masseuses will in fact often get than that because they keep all the extras charged to the client. There is probably more variance in the escort business. I may be wrong but my understanding is that the big agencies advertising here probably take less than 50, but the girls pay for the driver, bringing the ratio of what she get from the basic price paid by the client closer to 50%. These agencies are probably not representative of the market, however, because very few agencies outside merb offer a comparable basic gfe service. Clients will pay a lot of extras to get comparable services elsewhere. I guess some these agencies take more then 50% of the basic rate but tell the girls they'll be able to charge more extras. Booker could probably tell us if this portrait is realistic.
However, I'd would suggest to you that the agencies DO NOT control those rates and those ratios. It's a very open market in a city like Montreal. No one, including organized crime is able to dictate prices and pay ratio. The harshest competition is probably less for the market share of clients, than for the market share of providers. Any escort bringing good business has the big end of the stick when negotiating. Prices and ratios are not determined by what we think should be a fair share, even less by our appreciation of feminist claims however valid they could be. They are determined by the market competition.
Women are not commodities. I think you agree with that. So why compare them with a product we buy at the supermarket? Sex workers sell services, like hair dressers, plumbers and engineers. In most businesses of a certain size selling services, customers will pay a bit more than twice the salary (or otherwise the amount otherwise determined by contract) paid to the person providing the service. In massage parlors it's usually a bit less than half the basic rate. The masseuses will in fact often get than that because they keep all the extras charged to the client. There is probably more variance in the escort business. I may be wrong but my understanding is that the big agencies advertising here probably take less than 50, but the girls pay for the driver, bringing the ratio of what she get from the basic price paid by the client closer to 50%. These agencies are probably not representative of the market, however, because very few agencies outside merb offer a comparable basic gfe service. Clients will pay a lot of extras to get comparable services elsewhere. I guess some these agencies take more then 50% of the basic rate but tell the girls they'll be able to charge more extras. Booker could probably tell us if this portrait is realistic.
However, I'd would suggest to you that the agencies DO NOT control those rates and those ratios. It's a very open market in a city like Montreal. No one, including organized crime is able to dictate prices and pay ratio. The harshest competition is probably less for the market share of clients, than for the market share of providers. Any escort bringing good business has the big end of the stick when negotiating. Prices and ratios are not determined by what we think should be a fair share, even less by our appreciation of feminist claims however valid they could be. They are determined by the market competition.
This would be an other subject for an other thread. If I may ask just one question: why would not a women simply express what she wants using one simple word; no! Why is it so complicated? Why do we treat women like children (except for this case where she was 15, that's different). Why the stupid "Yes means yes" NY law? Why title 9? Why special laws for campuses when we know for a fact that rapes are extremely rare on campuses and where woman are, among all women their age, the most apt to say no. What makes it that young women can't say no when they mean no? My hypothesis is simple. At the moment, she does not really know what she thinks. And she engages in it anyway. But then, she regrets the day after. She did not say no, she did nor give an enthusiastic consent, but she engaged in it. We disengage her from her personal responsibility and put the total burden on the guy. Is this equality? Otherwise, why is it that she can't say no when she thinks no? Also, why is n't a woman capable to consent when under the influence of alcool? The laws we see more and more, fortunately less in Canada, do not intend to protect individuals. They are the product of feminist ideologues who's purpose is to gain power through the control of sexuality.
Well, I have one free hour and I wish to go back to this great thread. I will pick the following theme--Sorry, but I still have no clue on how to 'reply with quotes', so I just did copy/paste.
'Do you believe women are the cause of women who are escorts (i.e. of prostitution demand)?'
We men choose to frequent escorts for a variety of reasons. In the absence of valid data, I will again avoid the statistics and limit myself to a situation I know through personal experience. Following O.J. exhortation, I will not go into the 'true confession' mode. The situation I wish to consider now is that of heterosexual men who frequent escorts because they have no other way to live their sexuality. Clearly these men have been rejected multiple times and, obviously, by women. These men may be tempted to be resentful towards the women who have rejected them, and some go as far as generalizing their anger to women in general, often accusing 'feminists' for having poisoned the minds of womankind. I found the 'blaming the feminists' part quite ludicrous, perhaps because I have been rarely rejected by a feminist LOL! But, seriously, I do believe that to understand the cause of many rejections one should go back to the old concept of 'the war between the sexes'. In a male dominated society, women still have a powerful defensive weapon: refusing sex. A woman who is not aware of her power in general, and in particular, of the power she can acquire by refusing sex, will still use the weapon of refusing sex but in a passive-aggessive way, for example feigning or actually inflicting upon herself unconsciously, a horrible headache. But in this case, can we really say that the fault is the woman's? Or the man's? Honestly, no!
IMHO, the cause of the sexual misery common in our society is the economic system which robs men and women alike of their creative energies, so that they can function unquestioningly like automatons and be 'productive' (I skip the details!). A creative person, a sexually satisfied human being, may actually become conscious of his or her power to change things. For those who were not around in the sixties, I wish to point out that these ideas are not just my own, but are beautiful exposed in a little book by the psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, very popular in those days: 'THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION'. Perhaps not surprisingly, Reich died in jail. Incidentally, I chose my Merb handle (Orgone), from the name Reich chose for the vital energy that manifests itself (also) through sex. For those less fond of psychoanalysis than I, I will suggest watching a great low-budget, black-and-white Czech movie of the same era: 'Closely watched trains'. It is the story of a timid, sexually repressed adolescent that lives a great sexual experience with an older woman who is in the resistance against the Nazi. Empowered by this experience, the young man realizes that he can make a difference and blows up a few trains loaded with Nazi weapons and explosives.
What does all this have to do with the war of the sexes? Again IMHO, the economic system keeps its hold on people through a variety of strategies. A very powerful one is that of fomenting discord and division by creating or perpetuating inequalities among various natural groups, be they based on sex, age or ethnic identity. To return briefly to the ludicrous idea that 'feminists' are to blame for inciting women to reject men, I cannot but notice that the media give a disproportionate space to anti-sex feminists, creating the impression that they represent feminism in general, and leaving less and less space to the feminists who concentrate their activities on fighting socio-economic injustice against women. This type of manipulation was exploited by our present government as a strategy to pass the infamous C-36 bill, which actually strengthened Harper's right wing power basis, including anti-abortion and pro-war groups!
I will stop here for tonight. But what I wrote so far leads naturally to the next topic I wish to discuss (during my next free hour!): empowerment of escorts and....of people in general. As an essential first step for stopping the war between the sexes and many such phoney wars!
'Do you believe women are the cause of women who are escorts (i.e. of prostitution demand)?'
We men choose to frequent escorts for a variety of reasons. In the absence of valid data, I will again avoid the statistics and limit myself to a situation I know through personal experience. Following O.J. exhortation, I will not go into the 'true confession' mode. The situation I wish to consider now is that of heterosexual men who frequent escorts because they have no other way to live their sexuality. Clearly these men have been rejected multiple times and, obviously, by women. These men may be tempted to be resentful towards the women who have rejected them, and some go as far as generalizing their anger to women in general, often accusing 'feminists' for having poisoned the minds of womankind. I found the 'blaming the feminists' part quite ludicrous, perhaps because I have been rarely rejected by a feminist LOL! But, seriously, I do believe that to understand the cause of many rejections one should go back to the old concept of 'the war between the sexes'. In a male dominated society, women still have a powerful defensive weapon: refusing sex. A woman who is not aware of her power in general, and in particular, of the power she can acquire by refusing sex, will still use the weapon of refusing sex but in a passive-aggessive way, for example feigning or actually inflicting upon herself unconsciously, a horrible headache. But in this case, can we really say that the fault is the woman's? Or the man's? Honestly, no!
IMHO, the cause of the sexual misery common in our society is the economic system which robs men and women alike of their creative energies, so that they can function unquestioningly like automatons and be 'productive' (I skip the details!). A creative person, a sexually satisfied human being, may actually become conscious of his or her power to change things. For those who were not around in the sixties, I wish to point out that these ideas are not just my own, but are beautiful exposed in a little book by the psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, very popular in those days: 'THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION'. Perhaps not surprisingly, Reich died in jail. Incidentally, I chose my Merb handle (Orgone), from the name Reich chose for the vital energy that manifests itself (also) through sex. For those less fond of psychoanalysis than I, I will suggest watching a great low-budget, black-and-white Czech movie of the same era: 'Closely watched trains'. It is the story of a timid, sexually repressed adolescent that lives a great sexual experience with an older woman who is in the resistance against the Nazi. Empowered by this experience, the young man realizes that he can make a difference and blows up a few trains loaded with Nazi weapons and explosives.
What does all this have to do with the war of the sexes? Again IMHO, the economic system keeps its hold on people through a variety of strategies. A very powerful one is that of fomenting discord and division by creating or perpetuating inequalities among various natural groups, be they based on sex, age or ethnic identity. To return briefly to the ludicrous idea that 'feminists' are to blame for inciting women to reject men, I cannot but notice that the media give a disproportionate space to anti-sex feminists, creating the impression that they represent feminism in general, and leaving less and less space to the feminists who concentrate their activities on fighting socio-economic injustice against women. This type of manipulation was exploited by our present government as a strategy to pass the infamous C-36 bill, which actually strengthened Harper's right wing power basis, including anti-abortion and pro-war groups!
I will stop here for tonight. But what I wrote so far leads naturally to the next topic I wish to discuss (during my next free hour!): empowerment of escorts and....of people in general. As an essential first step for stopping the war between the sexes and many such phoney wars!
One thing also important to consider in our country is that third parties are risking 10 years in jail and a ruinous criminal trial just by working with escorts. I also believe the % collected by the management should be small, but criminalization surely has some influence on how much managers and owner ask for. The share someone asks depends on what they provide, but also on what they estimate the risk to be worth.
And I think many people are getting tired of this whole protecting the young female ''nature'' that can't give a straight yes or no. Young people should learn to (i) communicate and (ii) take responsibility for the activities they engage in. If you're unsure about something but still get convinced to do it, that was your call. This of course does not apply when the person does not have the knowledge or wisdom to consent, such as a child. But young women are not children.
Moreover, even if a woman gives a clear enthusistic yes, the man is still not in the clear because she can change her mind to ''no'' later when others convince her that she was convinced against her will.
The paradox is that the closer a society gets to sexual equality, the easier people are offended by relatively minor difference. And the safer a society gets, the more people are trying to see criminal intent and abuse in normal interactions. It's like we have a fixed level of being offended and afraid and we apply it to whatever the situation is.
https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/08/the-rise-of-the-culture-of-victimhood-ex
An interesting point. I wonder, though, if this has to do with "male domination", or perhaps it's more related to the different ways in which men and women are wired when it comes to sex. A variety of factors, including that fact that men have higher levels of testosterone than men, seem to make men more willing to take risks and go to greater lengths to have sex. Psychologist Roy Baumeister has written about this quite a bit:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive
http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare
The scientific evidence shows that men think more about sex than women, seek sex more avidly, are more easily turned on than women, and are more easily satisfied sexually. Is it any wonder, given these differences, that prostitution exists? I suspect that even in a society where women and men were absolutely equal in the economic and political spheres, there would still be a demand for escorts among men.
And also a lot of the non-commercial sex is still very transactionnal. Women can now expect and demand equal pay, which is good, but they also expect the man to pay on a date (not everyone but still quite a lot on average). Coming back to the wage gap again, when one sex pays most of the alimony and the other sex gets most of the expensive gifts and free diners, comparing their relative salaries does not mean much. If many women can get lots of freebies in exchange for their company, why would they fight to get the highest paying (and usually more stressfull) appointments in their field of work? Better to take the job that pays a little less and enjoy more of life. That's my own philosophy, but I think most men are still driven to be the ''provider'' and try to get the best paying position they can.
Unfortunately, "freebies", as you put it, don't pay the bills or contribute to investment/retirement funds, etc.
Most independent women, just like men, equal pay aside, want the best paying position they can get for the same reasons men do. These positions often come with pros and cons whether you're a man or a woman. When you're qualified for a job/position and excel at it, your sex doesn't/shouldn't matter.
I don't see why a woman should settle for less, and, at the same time, hope that Prince Charming will come along and "save" her from herself.
It's not a matter of settling for less, because what I've been trying to say is that when you are looking for a job, the salary is just one of many factors. And for many people it's not always the most critical.
Personnally, I make an modest average salary, but I could certainly earn more with a different employer. Given the level of low stress, schedule flexibility, location and short commute of my job, I am very satisfied with my salary. I don't feel discriminated because some of my former classmates make 3 times my salary working in the same field. I think women on average have more the luxury to make choices like that compared to the average men. Women now have their own financial authonomy, but many can still get men to pay some of their bills. I think overall there hasn't been a better time to be a woman in our society.
Personnally, I make an modest average salary, but I could certainly earn more with a different employer. Given the level of low stress, schedule flexibility, location and short commute of my job, I am very satisfied with my salary. I don't feel discriminated because some of my former classmates make 3 times my salary working in the same field. I think women on average have more the luxury to make choices like that compared to the average men. Women now have their own financial authonomy, but many can still get men to pay some of their bills. I think overall there hasn't been a better time to be a woman in our society.
I agree with you, I would sacrifice salary for quality of life any day. But how would you feel if someone was working at the same employer as you with the same job, low stress, schedule flexibility, and short commute to their job but was making 3 times more than you, would you feel discriminated against then?
Similar threads
