Human Punching Bags

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Client. Hookers have johns; call girls have clients. (My girlfriend is a sociology student.)

 

But you're right; from what I've been told, most call girls never develop affectionate friendships with their clients, not even regular clients, and even fewer hookers develop friendships with their johns. But that's probably due to demographics more than gender, and I don't think the nature of the job per se has much to do with it either.

 

Demographics - simply stated, if someone's paying for sex, the odds are that something's wrong. Either the client is under stress, or the client's unattractive, unpersonable, or just really, really unlucky. The clients who could get a willing partner and just prefer to pay, for whatever reason (avoiding entanglements or whatever), are few. So if it's hard for a smart, pretty girl to develop an affectionate friendship with a dull average joe, it must be much harder for a smart, pretty girl to develop an affectionate friendship with an average client.

 

Nature of the job - this is indirect. Society looks down on prostitutes of all stripes, and clients, especially males, hypocritically tend to share in that disdain. They rarely regard the prostitute as a person, and there's no reason to develop an affectionate friendship with someone who just wants to use you for his own gratification. Frequently, socially mandated guilt exacerbates this situation.

 

So yeah, maybe my gender did make a difference, in that the girls were more inclined to trust me. I think the fact that I saw and treated them as human beings made a bigger difference, though. I'm sure some men are intelligent, honest, and decent enough to do that too.

[Guest LooseCannon]

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.

Listen, I don't want to get into how I know this, but I will make it clear that I haven't ever paid for sex. (Though if my financial situation improves, I may in the future just for kicks). But the relationship between a male john and a prostitute/escort depends on the john. There are some guys that are just jerks of course, and whatever, they're paying for a service and they can act however they want within limits. But there are also nice guys who are considerate as well and they do develop relationships similiar to Marney's sometimes. If you treat someone with dignity and respect, than the potential for such a friendship developing is there regardless of sex.

 

And Eric, let's not pretend that sexuality isn't already commodified as it is. Your assumption that it's about trading emotion for money annoys me. For a lot of people it's just about getting off. And for those who are trading money for a moment of false emotional connection, why can't you just let them enjoy it? I'll pity someone that has to pay someone to feel loved, but calling them repugnant seems kind of callous. You know a little sympathy never hurt anyone. But maybe someday I'll understand why some people feel the need to condemn what others do with their genitals.

[Guest EricMM]

How old are you, Eric?

20

 

And Eric, let's not pretend that sexuality isn't already commodified as it is. Your assumption that it's about trading emotion for money annoys me. For a lot of people it's just about getting off. And for those who are trading money for a moment of false emotional connection, why can't you just let them enjoy it? I'll pity someone that has to pay someone to feel loved, but calling them repugnant seems kind of callous. You know a little sympathy never hurt anyone. But maybe someday I'll understand why some people feel the need to condemn what others do with their genitals.

I'm sorry I'm annoying you with my opinions. Clearly I shouldn't post while trashed. I get abrasive. I don't really find people who hire hookers to be "repugnant" I just PERSONALLY equate sex with love. That may not be everyones cup of tea. Clearly. What other people do is definitely their own thing, and maybe I shouldn't have opened my mouth. Do I have sympathy for people who are buying sex? I think it would depend on why they're buying sex. If it's because they want to do things to a girl that their wife would call the cops over, then no. But if it's someone who feels that they have to pay someone then it's very unfortunate. People who use prostitues as a step above masturbation, to get off, I'm ambivilant. However I would like to see it legalized and governmentized, if just to cut down on the seediness of the situation.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You don't get abrasive, you get sappy.

 

If it's because they want to do things to a girl that their wife would call the cops over, then no.

That only happens to people on the three lowest rungs on the ladder, as a rule. Working for a reputable brothel or agency is generally a pretty safe job. This is why we need government regulation and legal safeguards - to protect the poorer streetside prostitutes, and to eliminate entirely the lowest two rungs (enslaved children and enslaved adults).

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Dr Tom (00:04:10): Why have you been with call girls?

Marney (00:04:23): How old are you again?

Dr Tom (00:04:52): I mean, why would you need to? <g>

Marney (00:04:55): If I answer that question, is your mom going to kick my cute little ass for corrupting your innocence?

[Guest DrTom]

Nice editing job.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

What're you bitching about? <g> You wanted your mom's real name in there? And your AIM sn?

[Guest Chris "the chin"]

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.

 

Thanks for this Marney. I had a good laugh.

 

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."

 

If you had said "more likely" to begin with there wouldn't have been an issue. But thats not what you said. You only said that later while covering your ass.

 

And if I'm retarded at least I know how to read english.

 

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.

 

I'm talking about women being generals and you bring up a politician. That's amusing. I've never argued that women shouldn't be politicians or even the president. I think I've stated that repeatedly. I've only stated that if women want to be generals they should have to fight. That's it.

 

And unlike you Marney I think they can do it.

 

As to the whole killing thing, I have no idea if Colin Powell killed anyone in his tours in Vietnam, but he was in the field with the troops, dodging bullets, dealing with the reality of the men wounded and killed under him. He saw men killed and die. He saw it and proved he could function under those conditions. He saw your feints, and counterfients first hand and proved he could handle it under the worst conditions and under the highest level of stress. That's invaluable.

 

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."

 

True, but they are still not generals.

 

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

 

How long would you last in the field Marney?

 

If you say "not long" then I'd have to ask why? Because you're a women?

Sounds like a gross rationalization to avoid having to do a bit of dirty work yourself Marney.

 

You asked if I was a "coward" in an earlier post. That's amusing coming from someone who seems unwilling in principle to face the danger herself. Perhaps in reality you would be willing?

 

So I repeat my question again. How do you think you would do in the field?

 

If you think you'd do fine, then I'd have to ask why you think other women would be any different?

[Guest Chris "the chin"]

I just found this link on women in combat. Should put to rest the notion that women aren't suited for combat. They've already proven they can fight.

 

http://webhome.idirect.com/~kjcottam/resist.htm

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I had a good laugh

Anytime you want to stop telling me when you're laughing will be just fine, you insecure ROFLing little chatroom mongoloid. I really couldn't care less whether you're laughing or not, and I can't imagine anyone else does either.

 

You only said that later while covering your ass

No, Chris, it was right there all along and everyone else seems to have understood that. You're the only one who was confused. So either no one else on this board can read English, and you're the heaven-sent saviour of the language, come to teach us all the error of our ways, or you're full of shit again. Personally, I think it's the latter.

 

I'm talking about women being generals and you bring up a politician.

There aren't too many women in the military precisely because of attitudes like yours.

 

if women want to be generals they should have to fight... And unlike you Marney I think they can do it.

I know they can do it, you pathetic little shit. Goddess, could you take a cheaper shot? I know perfectly well that women could fight on the front lines and would if they had to. There are hundreds of examples. I just don't want to see it happen. It puts them in a terrible position. They'd suffer pressures their male colleagues would never have to endure. And it's unnecessary to boot. Why the hell should they do it? Just to prove to you that they can handle the responsibilities of command? Somehow I doubt impressing you is high on any woman's list of priorities.

There are countless high-pressure jobs requiring military skills and combat experience which don't involve hand-to-hand fighting and which don't ask people to fire weapons that would knock a woman with even well above average strength on her ass. With our technology, there are almost as many of the former as the latter. Have you thought about fighter pilots? Armor targeting? Naval gunners? No, according to the Chris Dobbins rulebook, combat experience only counts if you're waist-deep in leech-infested mud tearing Charlie's heart out with your bare hands, isn't that right?

As for the link, I've actually had the book for about a year now. It's pretty good; interesting reading. Nevertheless, there's a huge difference between the Soviet Union in 1945 and the United States in 2002. They needed everyone they could get; the German front was a meat-grinder. People were dying in the tens of millions. I don't think we'll ever be in that situation.

 

That's invaluable

Yeah, it's invaluable - for a soldier. It has no bearing on his qualifications as a general.

 

How long would you last in the field Marney?

Depends on the field. Probably one hell of a lot longer than you; I received my expert marksman certification two weeks ago, so at least I can shoot straight.

 

If you say "not long" then I'd have to ask why? Because you're a women? Sounds like a gross rationalization to avoid having to do a bit of dirty work yourself

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? It's not a rationalisation. I'm simply not needed out there at the moment, so why should I go? In the meantime, a 6'4 280 lb gorilla can do a better job on the front lines than a 5'7 115 lb girl. I can't fire a 26 lb rifle. The recoil almost knocks me off my feet. Even when I'm lying down, I get bone bruises from the stock. My sidearm weighs almost 5 lbs and I can still feel the shock of firing that all the way up to my shoulder, but males who've fired the same weapon barely even notice it. I can't carry a LAW, and I'm not a pilot. Your personal attack is completely ridiculous because there's absolutely no reason for me to try to avoid "dirty work." I'll never be asked to do it in the first place.

 

someone who seems unwilling in principle to face the danger herself. Perhaps in reality you would be willing?

It's simply not a question of the danger. It's a question of ability.

 

If you think you'd do fine, then I'd have to ask why do you think other women would be any different?

Most other women haven't had 17 years of hand-to-hand training. Most other women are nicer. You harass me, I won't complain to the CO. I'll toss you on the ground and stomp on your balls, and I'll wear heels.

[Guest J*ingus]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Marney was voted "most feared poster" in a thread in General Chat a while back.

[Guest Chris "the chin"]

Anytime you want to stop telling me when you're laughing will be just fine, you insecure ROFLing little chatroom mongoloid. I really couldn't care less whether you're laughing or not, and I can't imagine anyone else does either.

 

Still laughing...

 

No, Chris, it was right there all along and everyone else seems to have understood that.

 

Yeah after I forced you to explain yourself.

 

So either no one else on this board can read English, and you're the heaven-sent saviour of the language, come to teach us all the error of our ways, or you're full of shit again. Personally, I think it's the latter.

 

That's 3 things Marney.

 

1. Either no else can read English

2. I'm the heaven-sent saviour

3. Or I'm full of shit.

 

You don't use "latter" in sentence with 2 "formers"

 

There aren't too many women in the military precisely because of attitudes like yours.

 

No, it's because of stupid notions like yours that they can't hack it or shouldn't have to.

 

I know they can do it, you pathetic little shit.

 

Still laughing...

 

If you want me to stop why don't you get out of the 2nd grade and stop the naming calling. Nah nah nah nah nah

 

I know perfectly well that women could fight on the front lines and would if they had to. There are hundreds of examples. I just don't want to see it happen.

 

You don't want to see it happen? Cry me a river. It puts everyone in a terrible position.

 

They'd suffer pressures their male colleagues would never have to endure.

 

They can handle it. They've proven they can.

 

Besides men are all sex offenders. They have to deal with us every day anyway. Dealing with it on the battlefield shouldn't be a change for them.

 

And it's unnecessary to boot. Why the hell should they do it? Just to prove to you that they can handle the responsibilities of command?

 

Our armed forces are voluntary. Women don't have to do a thing. I wasn't arguing that should change.

 

There are countless high-pressure jobs requiring military skills and combat experience which don't involve hand-to-hand fighting and which don't ask people to fire weapons that would knock a woman with even well above average strength on her ass.

 

The heavy machine gun argument. Wow thats not tired. Seems like women managed in the past.

 

If the big metal gun is too heavy give them a plastic one. Not every man can carry a SAW either.

 

Have you thought about fighter pilots? Armor targeting? Naval gunners? No, according to the Chris Dobbins rulebook, combat experience only counts if you're waist-deep in leech-infested mud tearing Charlie's heart out with your bare hands, isn't that right?

 

I include fighter pilots, or helicopter pilots, or tankers or anyone who would actually be called on to fight. Not just grunts. A woman fighter pilot should have every right to be a general. God knows they've earned it.

 

As for the link, I've actually had the book for about a year now. It's pretty good; interesting reading. Nevertheless, there's a huge difference between the Soviet Union in 1945 and the United States in 2002. They needed everyone they could get; the German front was a meat-grinder. People were dying in the tens of millions. I don't think we'll ever be in that situation.

 

A credible argument. The first one you've had.

 

That book proves that women can handle combat. A point you agree with.

 

You're saying they can but they shouldn't. To me that's bullshit.

 

If you're going to argue they shouldn't completely share in the risk, I'm going to continue to argue that they shouldn't get all the benefits.

 

"How long would you last in the field Marney?"

 

Depends on the field. Probably one hell of a lot longer than you.

 

Probably. Thanks for proving my point.

 

I'm simply not needed out there at the moment, so why should I go? In the meantime, a 6'4 280 lb gorilla can do a better job on the front lines than a 5'7 115 lb girl.

 

Well thats why I don't go, but I'm not arguing that I shouldn't have to if the need arose.

 

Most other women haven't had 17 years of hand-to-hand training. Most other women are nicer. You harass me, I won't complain to the CO. I'll toss you on the ground and stomp on your balls, and I'll wear heels.

 

Most women with a little training from women like you would be perfectly willing and able to do the same thing.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

So either no one else on this board can read English, and you're the heaven-sent saviour of the language, come to teach us all the error of our ways, or you're full of shit again. Personally, I think it's the latter.

That's 3 things Marney.

1. Either no else can read English

2. I'm the heaven-sent saviour

3. Or I'm full of shit.

You don't use "latter" in sentence with 2 "formers"

The sentence has one "former." 1 and 2 are connected with "and." That's a single condition with two characteristics.

I guess we can dispense with the "heaven-sent saviour" bit. You can't even tell the difference between one and two.

 

If you're going to argue they shouldn't completely share in the risk, I'm going to continue to argue that they shouldn't get all the benefits.

The risk to women is insupportably greater. They don't just have to worry about the enemy, they have to worry about their comrades in arms. Ever heard of Tailhook? Your argument basically boils down to this: women should start with fewer advantages and assume greater risk for equal benefit. That doesn't wash with me.

 

If, someday, men stop harassing, groping, assaulting, and raping women, I'll be the first one to say they have an equal duty to be on the front lines. Physical limitations can be overcome. But until that day, I'll be damned if I'll listen to anyone tell me that the odds are fair and I have an obligation to play while he stacks the deck and slides two aces up his sleeve.

[Guest I Like WDI]

Getting back to the original subject, if a woman broke up with me, and, to get revenge, smashed some valuable stuff of mine, why would it be percieved to be so wrong to either:

 

A. Return the favour.

 

or

 

B. Call the police?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

A. Because it's illegal.

B. Because men complaining about women mistreating them are always somewhat comical.

"Awww, she fired a nailgun into your eyes and set fire to your house... stop whining, you crybaby. Beaten up by a girl! What a sissy!"

After all, women are small, helpless, and weak.

 

 

 

 

 

</deadpan>

[Guest J*ingus]

Any martial artist well tell you, in every self-defense class there's always at least one token girl who can easily kick the asses of 90% of everybody in the room, including males.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Yea, Jingus, and it's rather unfortunate when that one token girl happens to be your sister. Ug. Sibling rivalry at it's best.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Heh.

[Guest Chris "the chin"]

If, someday, men stop harassing, groping, assaulting, and raping women, I'll be the first one to say they have an equal duty to be on the front lines. Physical limitations can be overcome. But until that day, I'll be damned if I'll listen to anyone tell me that the odds are fair and I have an obligation to play while he stacks the deck and slides two aces up his sleeve.

 

Cool. Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner. Got busy at work.

 

I think we've pretty much exhausted this one so let me concede now. Good arguing with you. It was fun. Made last week fly by.

 

How'd I do as the devil?

 

Thought I had you there a couple of times even if it all was just bullshit. ;P

 

I'll play the devil again on Monday. It's going to be a slow week I think.

 

What should the topic be: gay/lesbian marriage? Rummy is a dummy? The degenerate nature of prostitution? or the degenerate nature of our alcoholic coke sniffing puppet President and his boss Cheney? Perhaps something else? Hehe let me know.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You did very well as the Devil. <g> Several times I forgot that you were just playing the part, so skillfully did you assume it.

Here are your horns. I'm not going near your tail with anything pointy, though, so don't get your hopes up.

 

gay/lesbian marriage?

What disagreement could we possibly fabricate? I don't think it should be legally recognised.

 

Rummy is a dummy? or the degenerate nature of our alcoholic coke sniffing puppet President and his boss Cheney?

Nothing directly criticising the administration. I can't take part in a discussion of that sort.

 

The degenerate nature of prostitution?

This might work, because I think it's an honourable, necessary, and worthwhile profession.

 

By the way, any word on the CGO forums? I just noticed the other day that they'd gone down.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Why don't you think gay/lesbian marrages should be recognized? Maybe I missed the forum topic or something, but, hey, I'm curious.

[Guest ScorpionDanceofDeath]

My sister is also one of them token girls. Thighs like tree stumps she has, and can pack a lot of power in her kicks. I'm glad she only spars with me.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

My sister wasn't the whole big strong muscle, but being able to do a completely verticle kick, right under your chin. And fast, too. Fortunatly, me and her became co-instructors, so we only had to spar the kids who weren't doing what they were supposed to. Heh heh heh.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Why don't you think gay/lesbian marrages should be recognized?

Because I don't think any marriages should be recognised by the state.

 

On vacation with the girl. Back in September.