Human Punching Bags

[Guest Chris "the chin"]

"BTW would you guys still refuse hot sex with a beautiful woman if it didn't make you lose some theoretical argument?"

 

Of course I would refuse.

 

However I wouldn't refuse hot sex with a beautiful woman if it meant I won a theoretical argument. I have my standards.

 

But really what do women think we are? Pieces of meat? You just can't walk up to me and say you want to sleep with me and expect that to work.

 

I need to be romanced.

 

At least have the courtesy to throw a 6pack in me first.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The point is simple. Men aren't threatened by attention per se. If they're paranoid or suspicious in the hypothetical situation I proposed it's because of their own insecurities, not because of the imaginary woman coming on to them. I should have anticipated that would be the case on an Internet message board focused on wrestling, but anyway.

 

As for the military thing, it's equally simple. Men will follow generals who win. You don't need to kill people yourself to win. You need to know the capabilities of your own forces and the enemy forces, you need to be a good manager, you need to think tactically and strategically, and you need to inspire your troops. Women can do all of these things.

 

I think I'm done here.

[Guest Chris "the chin"]

The point is simple. Men aren't threatened by attention per se.

 

By the imaginary never gonna happen scenerios? Who would be? What woman would be?

 

If they're paranoid or suspicious in the hypothetical situation I proposed it's because of their own insecurities, not because of the imaginary woman coming on to them.

 

It's not a realistic question. You ask your same question of women but reverse the sexes you could reasonably expect the same answer. The most gorgeous man you have ever laid eyes on comes over and says "Hey, would you believe I'm actually straight..."

 

Blah blah blah you know the rest. You're going to get the same answer from women.

 

A realistic question for men is this - say you're at a bar and a big fat hairy skank walks up to you and says "Hey, come back to my place. I want to fuck your brains out."

 

You know what most men would say? "Hey, why don't you go home and fuck yourself."

 

As for the military thing, it's equally simple. Men will follow generals who win. You don't need to kill people yourself to win. You need to know the capabilities of your own forces and the enemy forces, you need to be a good manager, you need to think tactically and strategically, and you need to inspire your troops. Women can do all of these things.

 

Why would I possibly allow someone to lead troops and a high level when they have proven incapable or unwilling to do it at a lower one? How could they possibly understand true battlefield tactics if you never set foot on one? They can't. How inspired are the troops going to be knowing that? Not very. Even Joan of Arc understood that.

 

Either women pick up a gun and get out there and be "equal" or don't act shocked when you get passed over for promotion. And that goes for any man who avoids combat as well.

 

Many women do argue that they should be allowed to fight just like men. You know what, I don't have a problem with that. If a woman wants to fight and she proves she can hack it, then I'm all for it. And when she's done make her a general. I'm cool with that too. That makes sense. That's consistent, logical, and fair. That's a person I could follow.

 

What you're argument amounts to is a demand for the benefits while avoiding the dirty work. Sorry, but that's bullshit.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

By the imaginary never gonna happen scenerios? Who would be? What woman would be? It's not a realistic question.

Now you're deliberately being thick. One more time, women as a gender do not prey on men. Men as a gender do prey on women. A man approaching or admiring a woman is always treated with much more suspicion than a woman admiring a man. This is fact, not theory.

 

Why would I possibly allow someone to lead troops and a high level when they have proven incapable or unwilling to do it at a lower one? How could they possibly understand true battlefield tactics if you never set foot on one? They can't.

Fortunately, it isn't up to you. The reality is that women can and do get promoted already without having to tear out an enemy soldier's throat with their teeth.

 

What you're argument amounts to is a demand for the benefits while avoiding the dirty work. Sorry, but that's bullshit.

No, your interpretation of my argument is bullshit. Command responsibilities are not and never have been related to personal physical prowess on the battlefield. If a high number of enemy kills were considered the most desirable quality in a general, Hannibal would have given field marshal's batons to his elephants.

 

As usual, you're simply full of shit, Chris.

[Guest J*ingus]

Although your general principle is correct, Marney, I think you're taking it to the extreme. Even though I have a dick, I also have a brain, and that brain would find it very odd that a complete stranger asked to have sex with me.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Sure, but I think you'd feel more flattered than threatened. With women that's usually reversed, for excellent reasons.

[Guest J*ingus]

No, I'm telling you, I really wouldn't. Whether you believe me or not, it would be more likely to scare me than anything else.

[Guest Chris "the chin"]

Now you're deliberately being thick. One more time, women as a gender do not prey on men. Men as a gender do prey on women.

 

"Prey" That's an interesting way of putting it. Put no I'm not being deliberately thick at all. Women most certainly prey on men as a gender though their goals are different.

 

I think a better word to use for women is "play".

 

Women as a gender play with men.

 

The reality is that women can and do get promoted already without having to tear out an enemy soldier's throat with their teeth.

 

Yes, I know. Women get to eat their cake and have it too. Doesn't make it right.

 

Command responsibilities are not and never have been related to personal physical prowess on the battlefield.

 

Yeah, but victory or defeat has been and always will be directly related to the generals experience in the field.

 

If a high number of enemy kills were considered the most desirable quality in a general, Hannibal would have given field marshal's batons to his elephants.

 

Well he wouldn't have given them to the women back at camp which is what you're suggesting.

[Guest EricMM]

The point is simple. Men aren't threatened by attention per se. If they're paranoid or suspicious in the hypothetical situation I proposed it's because of their own insecurities, not because of the imaginary woman coming on to them. I should have anticipated that would be the case on an Internet message board focused on wrestling, but anyway.

Sure, but I think you'd feel more flattered than threatened. With women that's usually reversed, for excellent reasons.

I think what Marney said and what she meant are two different things. I know it's splitting hairs but I think I can make it work out. What Marney said is too much. It's too extreme, it's too abrupt, it's too... (forgive me) unladylike. No, wrong words. I mean that in our culture, women DON'T say that. For that matter, guys don't/shouldn't say that, and anyone who did would be weird. On the other hand, if Marney turned it down by a few notches there are things that women could do for a guy that would cause a guy to preen whereas if the roles were reversed, the girl would suspect something suspicious. Like being touchy feely for example. If a girl is touchy with a guy, he's gonna be all "woohoo!" but if a guy gets touchy with a girl, she will be not cool with it to say the least.

 

Does that make sense?

 

"Prey" That's an interesting way of putting it. Put no I'm not being deliberately thick at all. Women most certainly prey on men as a gender though their goals are different.

 

I think a better word to use for women is "play".

 

Women as a gender play with men.

I suppose you COULD make the point that any guy would be leery of a woman who was coming on too strong because she was just in it for the money. If that's not what you're saying say so, but that's what I'm interpreting. If that's the worst thing a woman can do to a man, make him spend money, then there's no parallel. It's not equal. Because men do worse things to women everyday. Don't act like gold diggers equal rapists. Please.

 

I don't have much experiance in military affairs, but I've always been under the impression that some people were officers and some people were grunts, and that the officers didn't do as much fighting because they were in a way more important. I really don't feel that shooting a gun and commanding troops are the same things. Granted combat experiance could help as a general of course, but I really think that Officer School is more important...

 

Yes, I know. Women get to eat their cake and have it too. Doesn't make it right.

Do you really think that women have a better position than men in todays society? Do you really think that they have an equal position? Tell me again who are the CEO's, the scientists, the presidents, and the like. Tell me again who has their sex meds covered by insurance and who doesn't. Tell me again who has to deal with taunts on the street, be she pretty or ugly. It's not physiological, it's societal.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Thanks for the hand, Eric. Yep, your example makes the point much more clearly than mine; it's an interesting case of reductio ad absurdum working in the wrong direction.

 

And no, Chris, you're still wrong. Explain what ducking bullets and drawing a bead on a sniper helps with when you're figuring out troop movements, calculating supply line attenuation, or evaluating, comparing, and disguising feints, strikes, and counterfeints. Really, your ideas aren't hard to argue against because they're right in anyway; they're tiresome to argue against because they're so completely wrong in so many ways. I have to spend half my time figuring out where the hell you're coming from. It's like trying to explain to a two year-old why the sky is blue when he has his own theories involving fairy dust.

[Guest Chris "the chin"]

If a girl is touchy with a guy, he's gonna be all "woohoo!" but if a guy gets touchy with a girl, she will be not cool with it to say the least.

 

True, unless she's a dog. That's the point I was making earlier. It only works if the person coming on to you is attractive. In that situation it works for both sexes.

 

If that's the worst thing a woman can do to a man, make him spend money, then there's no parallel. It's not equal. Because men do worse things to women everyday. Don't act like gold diggers equal rapists. Please.

 

Would you say "playing" or "preying" was worse? "Preying" of course. I never claimed that the harm caused by a sex that preys was equal to one that plays. That's why I used "play" to make the distinction.

 

Marney claims men prey on women as a sex. What's a person supposed to take from a remark like that? Men as a gender are all sex offenders? You ok with that? That seem true to you?

 

Granted combat experiance could help as a general of course, but I really think that Officer School is more important...

 

Men in the field are led by officers both commissioned and non-comissioned. They get shot at just like the grunts. Those men lead in combat then later move away from the battlefield. That experience is invaluable.

 

Sure officer school is important. But it's just the start. It's the difference between book learning and real experience.

 

Do you really think that women have a better position than men in todays society? Do you really think that they have an equal position?

 

No, I don't think that at all. The position I was arguing was that women's unequal status in the military is justified if you accept Marney's statement that women are unfit for combat.

 

I never argued that in the boardrooms or courtrooms they deserved anything less than equal status. I've never argued that women are unfit for combat either.

 

That's the difference. Marney says women shouldn't be in combat but they should be allowed to rise to the highest rank. I say that's bullshit. Women should be allowed in combat and those women have every right to rise to the highest levels of the armed forces.

 

Those people, men and women, who excuse themselves from combat don't belong at the top of an entity designed to do one thing...

 

Fight

 

That's why I don't care much for our current president, and certainly not for our last one. McCain should have been president.

[Guest Chris "the chin"]

And no, Chris, you're still wrong. Explain what ducking bullets and drawing a bead on a sniper helps with when you're figuring out troop movements, calculating supply line attenuation, or evaluating, comparing, and disguising feints, strikes, and counterfeints.

 

OFFICERS LEAD IN THE FIELD. THEY LEAD IN COMBAT. You think they don't learn anything? Or that it isn't invaluable? You think everything they learn there can be taught in a book? Go ask Colin Powell if what he learned fighting in Vietnam could be gotten from a book. You're argument is a fucking hollywood fantasy. It's movie logic, where the hero can read a book on kung Fu and be goddamn Kung Fu master.

 

"Really, your ideas aren't hard to argue against because they're right in anyway; they're tiresome to argue against because they're so completely wrong in so many ways. I have to spend half my time figuring out where the hell you're coming from. It's like trying to explain to a two year-old why the sky is blue when he has his own theories involving fairy dust.

 

This paragraph isn't an argument. This is button pushing. Really weak button pushing too.

 

And if you are as tired as your arguments Marney you must be exhausted.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Marney claims men prey on women as a sex. What's a person supposed to take from a remark like that?

That men, as a gender, prey on women, as a gender. That men rape, and women don't. That 97% of all violent criminals are men. That men are overwhelmingly more likely to assault a woman than a woman is to assault a man.

 

Men as a gender are all sex offenders?

See Chris, I thought that your problem was that you were more interested in vainly trying to push people's buttons than in conducting an honest argument. Now I think I was wrong. You just don't get it. That's why you spend all your time shouting at the rain.

What does your sentence mean, exactly? "Men as a gender are all sex offenders?" It makes no sense. The statement "Men as a gender are sex offenders," is true; it's based on indisputable facts. The most basic crime statistics establish beyond any argument that men as a gender ARE sex offenders and women as a gender ARE NOT. Women as a gender simply do not commit violent sexual assaults. Men as a gender do. Are you still confused?

In your own special way, however, you go on to confute this statement with an inflammatory misinterpretation: "All men are sex offenders." This is manifestly untrue. However, no one has said this. No one believes it. You are once again attempting to refute a sound argument by rebuilding it in your confused little mind into a straw man. Sorry Chris, it isn't going to work. Argue on the merits of the case and I might take you seriously. Keep revising my arguments for me and blustering against your own stupid statements and I won't. Are you a liar and a coward or just an idiot? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt; I think you're an idiot.

 

As for the military, once again, you put on display your gross ignorance and miscomprehension of the nature of command. President Bush hasn't killed anyone in combat. So what? He did a pretty good job crushing the Taliban like bugs. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has never served on the front lines in a war. So what? He's still an expert strategist. Military men trust him with their lives and with the lives of everyone under their command. Why don't you go and tell them they're wrong, just because he hasn't spent two weeks in a foxhole? Command experience is gained only through combat? I'm sure this is news to everyone in the chain of command. This is why we have a chain of command in the first place, Chris. Do you even know understand the concept? I don't think you do. That's why arguing this subject with you is a bit like telling a mole how to fly. You're too full of macho Rambo crap to understand the real responsibilities, duties, and skills required of an officer. You've never held a command post in your life, and you never shall.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but that's a comfort to me.

[Guest Chris "the chin"]

See Chris, I thought that your problem was that you were more interested in vainly trying to push people's buttons than in conducting an honest argument.

 

Coming from you this is a fucking joke Marney.

 

Now I think I was wrong. You just don't get it. That's why you spend all your time shouting at the rain. What does your sentence mean, exactly? "Men as a gender are all sex offenders?" It makes no sense.

 

I thought the question was simple. Sorry if it blew one of your circuits.

 

The statement "Men as a gender are sex offenders," is true; it's based on indisputable facts. The most basic crime statistics establish beyond any argument that men as a gender ARE sex offenders and women as a gender ARE NOT. Women as a gender simply do not commit violent sexual assaults. Men as a gender do. Are you still confused? In your own special way, however, you go on to confute this statement with an inflammatory misinterpretation: "All men are sex offenders." This is manifestly untrue. However, no one has said this. No one believes it. You are once again attempting to refute a sound argument by rebuilding it in your confused little mind into a straw man.

 

Marney, I love it how you use words like "inflammatory misinterpretation" but you can't understand basic english. There's no difference between saying men as a gender are sex offenders and men are sex offenders.

 

When would you say "men as dolphins are sex offenders"? or "Men because they happen to be kangaroos are sex offenders"? What else would men be but the male gender? It's meaningless. You're saying "men as men are sex offenders" which is exactly the fucking same as saying "men are sex offenders" except that you've restated it in a bit more timid and confused fashion. And you didn't say it was just some men...you didn't say that men in general are more likely to be.... no, just "men as men are sex offenders."

 

And all this crap "This is manifestly untrue. However, no one has said this. No one believes it...." That's just you covering your ass now that you stepped in it. Why don't you come out and say what you really feel Marney? You think all men are rapists and molesters.

 

No, that's not what you think? Well, then say you fucked up and just restate yourself. Don't try to hide behind semantics.

 

"Sorry Chris, it isn't going to work. Argue on the merits of the case and I might take you seriously."

 

Yeah right. I don't believe that for a second. Why should I? You haven't yet.

 

"Are you a liar and a coward or just an idiot? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt; I think you're an idiot."

 

Ohhh I like this. What were you complaining about earlier...something about vainly trying to push peoples buttons...I did read that didnt I?

 

You know I love it when you write stuff like this Marney. I eat it up, because it means you've run out of anything intelligent to say.

 

"As for the military, once again, you put on display your gross ignorance and miscomprehension of the nature of command. President Bush hasn't killed anyone in combat."

 

I love your examples Marney. He's a fucking politician. He's not a general and he knows it. He doesn't plan battles on a strategic level or a tactical one. He doesn't fight. He only sets goals for the military to carry out and then gets the hell out of the way.

 

"He did a pretty good job crushing the Taliban like bugs."

 

No he didn't. Our military did. He set goals and delegated to the professionals, men who had actually fought.

 

"The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has never served on the front lines in a war. So what? He's still an expert strategist."

 

Another politician. One who still can't garner enough respect to keep the people under him at the defense department from leaking secrets like a sieve.

 

"Military men trust him with their lives and with the lives of everyone under their command."

 

They got a choice?

 

"Why don't you go and tell them they're wrong, just because he hasn't spent two weeks in a foxhole?"

 

Yeah, I love what he's done with Afghanistan. Place is goin right back down the shitter, and you can thank him for killing the idea of stationing more U.S. troops or peacekeepers there. What do the men think about the prospect of having to go fight another war in Afghanistan?

 

"Command experience is gained only through combat? I'm sure this is news to everyone in the chain of command. This is why we have a chain of command in the first place, Chris."

 

This part is meaningless. There's nothing here to even argue.

 

Do you even know understand the concept? I don't think you do. That's why arguing this subject with you is a bit like telling a mole how to fly. You're too full of macho Rambo crap to understand the real responsibilities, duties, and skills required of an officer.

 

Really? But you would argue that you understand the real responsibilities, duties, and skills required of an officer to fight in a war without ever have been near one.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Chris, I think we're pretty much done here. I think I've stated my case clearly, and your every subsequent post is merely the shouting of a man too angry to realise how badly he's been wounded.

 

Now, let's have some unjustified appeals to authority.

 

1. Everyone who understood that the statement "Men as a gender are sexual offenders" does not claim that every man is a criminal, please raise your hands.

 

Chris, one statement is statistical, based on probabilities and causality, and the other is absolute. That is why my version is correct and yours is just plain wrong. What I've been saying all along is that men are more likely to commit sexual assault because they are men - thus, "as a gender." Not because of poverty, or lack of education, or culture, but just because they're men. This is a statement about probability. Saying "All men are criminals" is an absolute claim, and one which is obviously incorrect. I'm sorry your inadequate education didn't cover the difference between one and the other. But your post is not an argument against my position. Your post is an argument for educational reform.

 

In plain English:

 

You're a retard.

 

2. Everyone who thinks the Secretary of Defense is "a fucking politician," with no military expertise, simply because he's never killed anyone, please raise your hands.

 

Chris, the United States armed forces take their orders from expert and fully informed civilians. That is why we don't have coups. If Mr Rumsfeld is "a fucking politician," how could he be relied upon to make broad-based decisions, such as cancelling the Crusader program? His department doesn't leak because he's "a fucking politician," nor does it leak because people don't respect his military expertise. People leak as a form of political retribution. They don't like the fact that he wants to shift focus from one branch of the services to another. They don't like the fact that he's cancelling lucrative government contracts. He's taking away people's little pools of personal power and ensuring that the defence budget is spent in the most effective way possible to defend the country.

How would shooting an enemy soldier, or 200 enemy soldiers, help him to do this? How would he do this without any expertise in military strategy? You think Rambo would be a better choice as head of the DoD?

Contrary to what you think, the President and the OSD do not simply state the goals and then "[get] the hell out of the way." They supervise every inch of the conflict. They micromanage. They get into the generals' faces and demand answers. This is what FDR did in the Second World War. LBJ was the one who delegated. He set unrealistic goals, didn't set parameters, and didn't supervise the military, and that is why we got our asses kicked in Vietnam. We didn't know why the hell we were there, what the hell we were supposed to do, or how the hell to do it. We won in Afghanistan because the President and the OSD knew precisely why we were there, what we were doing, and how we should do it. I've attended the Secretary's press briefings. I've attended the President's speeches. I've sat in closed Congressional hearings, military strategy meetings, and intelligence briefings. I know how it gets done, and it doesn't get done by sitting on your ass in an office and saying "Make it so."

 

you would argue that you understand the real responsibilities, duties, and skills required of an officer to fight in a war without ever have been near one.

No, sweetheart, I would argue that I understand their responsibilities, duties, and required skills because I've trained them.

 

Okay class, please respond to the poll.

1. "Men as a gender are sex offenders" = "All men are sex offenders"

Yes/No?

2. The Secretary of Defense isn't Rambo, so he's just "a fucking politician," and has no military command expertise.

Yes/No?

[Guest bob_barron]

I vote no on both counts

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

I agree with Chris on the point that I'd like some clarification between "men as a whole" and "some men" or "men are more likely to," just because it does come off as though all men are offenders. As for the rest of this, I have mixed feelings, and frankly I know I'm not well-spoken enough to jump in....just wanted to say my piece. Marney, you got mad at me for saying "but" once when it isn't what I meant...hope you can understand where I'm coming from. It's all semantics, but it still irritates me.

 

EDIT: What I'm getting at is better said if I just vote "yes" on #1....not because it's what you meant, but because it's how it came off to me.

 

EDIT: Voting "no" on #2. Just, you know, to get that in there.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Y'all don't have to apologise for your votes; just vote. I ain't gonna get mad, I promise.

 

I'd like some clarification between "men as a whole" and "some men" or "men are more likely to," just because it does come off as though all men are offenders.

Well, I've tried to clarify it several times already, but I'll try one more time. Imagine that a boy and a girl are from the same economic and social class, same educational background, same culture, same part of the country, same religion, same political views, same everything - except for gender. If you were told that one of these people was a convicted rapist, and the other was not, would you pick the boy or the girl?

See?

[Guest J*ingus]

Would you say that this is more related to the psychological nature of men (i.e., aggresive testosterone impulses) or their physiological nature (because of the structure of male genitalia, that all sex for males involves penetrating and invading someone)?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Both, I think. Psychologically, both from a genetic and a sociocultural perspective, men are more aggressive than women - testosterone is one factor, but men are also expected to be more competitive and aggressive than women. Physiologically, men are stronger, bigger, and heavier, and they can get pleasure out of sexual intercourse without a woman's consent. Women can't have sexual intercourse with a man who doesn't have an erection; thus, women can't rape men in that way.

Now where are your votes? <prods Jingus> (Get your minds out of the gutter. Perverts.)

[Guest J*ingus]

<enjoys being prodded> Gutter, what gutter?

 

I'd have to say no and no, of course.

[Guest EricMM]

I will vote yes to the first one if you flip it around

 

instead of "men as a gender are sex offenders" how about "sex offenders as a gender are male" or something like that. Ephasize that sex offenders are male, not that males are sex offenders. Because otherwise it will rub us guys the wrong way. I wouldn't say that women as a gender were hookers... I really wouldn't say that either.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Hmm. It does sound less offensive that way, but my formulation isn't inaccurate. In context, it was very specifically contrasted against the fact that women as a gender are not sex offenders. Similarly, if you were to say that women were far more likely than men to be hookers, and that their gender had more of an effect on the statistics than even poverty, that would be entirely correct. There's simply more of a demand for female hookers than there is for male hookers, and that's what determines the supply.

What's wrong with prostitution, anyway? In principle?

[Guest EricMM]

Well I agree with you that using the gender as the main noun/subject thing (my language teachers wouldn't approve ) gives it a better contrast against the opposite gender. I just think it would garner more/better replies if you didn't indirectly call males sex offenders on a majorly male message board.

 

I don't think aaanyone would ever say that women perform any sizable percentage of physical sexual harrasment, otherwise men would form an almighty queue, all the while saying "It's sexual harrasment, an' I wanna take it! Harass me!!!"

 

What's wrong with prostitution? Well besides spreading disease, nothing specifically wrong with trading money for favors. I do think there's something wrong with casual/impersonal sex in general, but that's because I've seen it cause more harm than good amongst my peers. Plus it does spread diseases. Believe me, I'm in no hurry to excange my scarlet V for a V.D...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

besides spreading disease

If it were properly regulated, that wouldn't be even a minor concern. Prostitutes should be respected and protected by law, as they were in the past.

[Guest EricMM]

and more power to them.

 

Please anyone who pays for sex is replacing emotion with like... capitalism? Money? It's not love. It's not right. They'll get everything they pay for, and it won't be worth anything.

 

But that's totally not the fault of the prostitute, I say legalize and govt. them. Tax them. Fund our war on terror with the massive influx of fundage. There are enough stupid men and women in the world to make the sex trade profitable.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"Not right?" "Stupid?" Christ, you're naive. I've slept with call girls myself. They were all very sweet, very pretty girls, and years later we still exchange email regularly - several times a week, in fact. I don't regret a single moment or a single dollar. I spent entire nights soaked in pleasure and I made lasting friends with intelligent, fascinating young women. It absolutely was worth it. How the hell can you tell me whether it was or it wasn't? I'm the only possible judge of that.

[Guest EricMM]

well fine fine.

 

IMO. There I've said it. It's no longer my perception of truth. I just find sex for money to be wrong. I think sex should be for love. That is not naive and if you say so, well then we will disagree.

 

I'm glad you had a good time. really. I'm glad you made friends. really. But on the other hand, I find men who pay women for the chance to fuck them to be repugnant. Noone should pay for sex because sex should be the expression of love between two people.

 

If that is naive, you are too callous, jaded, or something. Nah, I bear no ill will to those who do that, none at all, it's just how I feel.

 

I would feel jaded if I could trade emotions for a dollar.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

How old are you, Eric?

[Guest J*ingus]

I've slept with call girls myself. They were all very sweet, very pretty girls, and years later we still exchange email regularly - several times a week, in fact. I don't regret a single moment or a single dollar. I spent entire nights soaked in pleasure and I made lasting friends with intelligent, fascinating young women.

Damn, there's one to file away for those long, lonely nights.

 

But seriously, I do think that it was probably a bit different situation because of your gender, Marney. I kinda doubt that the same relationship would spring up between a prostitute and your average john.