Why are many men judged for using the services of hookers?

[Uski]

I think it will never be the case, in fact this hypergamy thing can go more haywire. For such a change to happen, there would have to be some selection pressures for that at first and our modern world is mostly behind that anyway. Women have more options than ever, so they can afford to be even more picky than, say, in the paleolithic era. You can see the similar pattern in some animal populations, when there is no real danger, the males tend to develop a lot of useless, purely ethical stuff like bright coloring, which would otherwise attract predators.

I agree. What a time we live in

[Insuperable]

Men want pussy all the time yet women who put out often are seen as sluts. Men who don't get laid are seen as losers. If they visit hookers they are seen as even bigger losers. That is how it is.

[Longbowman]

Geisha, looked down upon? Hetaire looked down upon? Slaves? I don't think so. In Japan, one of the terms for a prostitute was a "Goddess of Mercy." In India, during the time of the Kama Sutra (terminus ante quem 400 BCE - 300 CE), a "genteel townsman" (naagarika) was expected to have several prostitutes in his employ like members of his household. It was expected that a man should visit a prostitute for just about any significant event i.e. Going on a trip? See a hooker. Your birthday? See a hooker. Important festival day? See a hooker. Just closed a successful business deal? See a hooker.

Even in Mughal courts, men patronized prostitutes, giving them monthly salaries. See the series 'Harlots' about prostitution in 18th century England. Wealthy, aristocratic men were "keepers" who "kept" prostitutes as part of their household, paying them salaries.

In ancient Babylonia, girls, as part of their coming of age, were expected to work as prostitutes in goddess temples, where they were seen as representatives of the goddess they served.

Lol.

Geisha weren't whores, but either way you're spinning as you normally do. Mingle's point lacked nuance but obviously rich and powerful women (or rather, women from high-status, wealthy families) never ended up as whores (or geishas) with some rare exceptions of women from families that fell from grace - not high nobles, but for example, after the Civil War, there was a high-society prostitute circle of destitute women whose husbands had died or fled in London. Certainly in no known society has it been an acceptable calling for a middle or upper class women, even if upper and middle class men patronised whores, they would never allow their daughters to become one.

As for Babylonia, you're repeating myths spun by its enemies to denigrate it as fact, even though they've been essentially proven to be lies for over 50 years, because you think it suits your viewpoint. The Bible and other texts do this a lot - for example, the story of the Levite's concubine in Judges, or pretty much any Judean reference to Israel, etc etc. The reality is that obviously prostitution wasn't a duty, although prostitutes did exist and were tolerated more than they were in more puritan times.

TL;DR: well done, you're regurgitating 3,000 year old propaganda (probably knowingly, knowing you).

Dishonest to the last! When will you develop a perspective that doesn't *coincidentally* suit your own interests to the bone?

You need to develop the capacity for internal reflection.

[Óttar]

Lol.

Geisha weren't whores, but either way you're spinning as you normally do. Mingle's point lacked nuance but obviously rich and powerful women (or rather, women from high-status, wealthy families) never ended up as whores (or geishas) with some rare exceptions of women from families that fell from grace - not high nobles, but for example, after the Civil War, there was a high-society prostitute circle of destitute women whose husbands had died or fled in London. Certainly in no known society has it been an acceptable calling for a middle or upper class women, even if upper and middle class men patronised whores, they would never allow their daughters to become one.

As for Babylonia, you're repeating myths spun by its enemies to denigrate it as fact, even though they've been essentially proven to be lies for over 50 years, because you think it suits your viewpoint. The Bible and other texts do this a lot - for example, the story of the Levite's concubine in Judges, or pretty much any Judean reference to Israel, etc etc. The reality is that obviously prostitution wasn't a duty, although prostitutes did exist and were tolerated more than they were in more puritan times.

TL;DR: well done, you're regurgitating 3,000 year old propaganda (probably knowingly, knowing you).

Dishonest to the last! When will you develop a perspective that doesn't *coincidentally* suit your own interests to the bone?

You need to develop the capacity for internal reflection.

Nice way to completely ignore the Kama Sutra. And you are spinning the narrative to suit your agenda, as usual. Just like how you brushed aside the Italian phenomenon of the cicisbeo as if these young men were merely the true boyfriends of wealthy Italian women forced to marry older men. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

[Longbowman]

Nice way to completely ignore the Kama Sutra. And you are spinning the narrative to suit your agenda, as usual. Just like how you brushed aside the Italian phenomenon of the cicisbeo as if these young men were merely the true boyfriends of wealthy Italian women forced to marry older men. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

The Kama Sutra also didn't involve high-ranking women turning to prostitution just 'cause. I thought that was obvious so I didn't mention it, although I did make a blanket statement that included it (and everything else under the sun). And nice 'I know you are but what am I' response, but it's not fooling anyone, except maybe yourself. If you were a tenth as well-read as you pretend to be, you'd know the academic consensus is exactly as I described it is and has been since decades before either of us were born.

Cisibei were likely occasionally intimate with the women they were supposed to escort, what's your point? Most of them were gay, though (at least, the ideal one was supposed to be gay. I presume some were not). I don't remember the intricacies of the conversation we had about them, it was years ago, but you probably alleged that they were proof of rampant polyamory and how polyamory is the best thing evarrr.

Please note (as everyone else has) that when I called you out for your horse and accuse you of bias and spin, I also explained why everything you said was dumb in a fair amount of detail. All you can do is whine and bring up an unrelated 2 year old conversation that I'm fairly sure I destroyed you in, too.

[Óttar]

The Kama Sutra also didn't involve high-ranking women turning to prostitution just 'cause. I thought that was obvious so I didn't mention it, although I did make a blanket statement that included it (and everything else under the sun). And nice 'I know you are but what am I' response, but it's not fooling anyone, except maybe yourself. If you were a tenth as well-read as you pretend to be, you'd know the academic consensus is exactly as I described it is and has been since decades before either of us were born.

Cisibei were likely occasionally intimate with the women they were supposed to escort, what's your point? Most of them were gay, though (at least, the ideal one was supposed to be gay. I presume some were not). I don't remember the intricacies of the conversation we had about them, it was years ago, but you probably alleged that they were proof of rampant polyamory and how polyamory is the best thing evarrr.

Please note (as everyone else has) that when I called you out for your horse and accuse you of bias and spin, I also explained why everything you said was dumb in a fair amount of detail. All you can do is whine and bring up an unrelated 2 year old conversation that I'm fairly sure I destroyed you in, too.

My post was to demonstrate the ubiquity of the institution of prostitution in several separate historical contexts. A genteel townsman (naagarika) was expected to maintain several prostitutes monetarily and to engage in paid sex for just about every occasion. Like I said, in Mughal courts, men often also maintained either one or several prostitutes. Wealthy and aristocratic men did the same in 18th century London, where they were known as "keepers". Sex work is not monolithic and the stereotype of the whore as a curb-crawler or lot-lizard is only one small aspect of the industry. In that same vein, the patrons of prostitutes are not universally losers. They are men of every profession and social class in every country on this Earth in just about every historical context you can think of.

I have no time for your quasi-fundie-Christer rhetoric, or your talk about "social degeneracy" which is a concept that goes back to Social Darwinist/racist/proto-Nazi ideology.

I honestly don't give a fuck whether or not fathers approved of their daughters engaging in prostitution. Fathers and brothers are not the gatekeepers of their daughters' or sisters' sex lives (despite what many on this forum may believe). Neither you nor anyone else is the moral arbiter of my life. Only I am.

You think that you are scoring points when you are basically preaching to the Junior-Anti-Sex-League here on this forum. That's not difficult to do.

[Longbowman]

My post was to demonstrate the ubiquity of the institution of prostitution in several separate historical contexts. A genteel townsman (naagarika) was expected to maintain several prostitutes monetarily and to engage in paid sex for just about every occasion. Like I said, in Mughal courts, men often also maintained either one or several prostitutes. Wealthy and aristocratic men did the same in 18th century London, where they were known as "keepers". Sex work is not monolithic and the stereotype of the whore as a curb-crawler or lot-lizard is only one small aspect of the industry. In that same vein, the patrons of prostitutes are not universally losers. They are men of every profession and social class in every country on this Earth in just about every historical context you can think of.

I have no time for your quasi-fundie-Christer rhetoric, or your talk about "social degeneracy" which is a concept that goes back to Social Darwinist/racist/proto-Nazi ideology.

I honestly don't give a fuck whether or not fathers approved of their daughters engaging in prostitution. Fathers and brothers are not the gatekeepers of their daughters' or sisters' sex lives (despite what many on this forum may believe). Neither you nor anyone else is the moral arbiter of my life. Only I am.

No one is arguing prostitution wasn't ubiquitous - you argued its practitioners were revered! Of course prostitutes have always been at least relatively common.

You may think you'd be chill with your daughter being a whore, but you're the odd one out. Oddballs do exist though, there's that woman who manages her daughter's porn career. That's my point here - correcting your objectively abysmal grasp and portrayal of history. We've already been through ethics. This is just factchecking.

You think that you are scoring points when you are basically preaching to the Junior-Anti-Sex-League here on this forum. That's not difficult to do.

I'm scoring points by demolishing your credibility. And divvying the world into 'people who would be OK with their kids being sex workers' and 'the junior anti sex league' is at best disingenuous.

I see the fairness, on the other hand, in attacking my position as a sort of patriarchal oppression, but I have been careful to be gender-neutral. I liken a child being a whore to a child being a drug dealer - an antisocial and unproductive trade (for reasons already articulated) that as a close family member and indeed parent I am obligated to attempt to curtail. I would call this utilitarian rather than fascist, although a fascist would do the same for slightly different reasoning.

[Óttar]

No one is arguing prostitution wasn't ubiquitous - you argued its practitioners were revered! Of course prostitutes have always been at least relatively common.

That was not the main point of my post. I said that there is an example of prostitutes being called "Goddesses of Mercy" in Japan. While I realize that my Babylonian example is based on old scholarship, they may (more-like highly probably) have practiced sacred prostitution in the Mediterranean in ancient times. This is hardly the main point of my post. Mingle pretty much stated that prostitutes were universally slaves. That statement is erroneous.

You may think you'd be chill with your daughter being a whore, but you're the odd one out. Oddballs do exist though, there's that woman who manages her daughter's porn career. That's my point here - correcting your objectively abysmal grasp and portrayal of history. We've already been through ethics. This is just factchecking.

If you recall, in that other thread where we discussed this, I said that my daughter engaging in sex-work would certainly not be ideal, but if she were to engage in that, I would hope that she would be safe and protect herself, using safe sex practices. That's all. I would in no way encourage my daughter to take up that line of work. And, being of comfortable means, I don't see that really ever being an issue. My future wife and hypothetical daughter will be taken care of. At the same time, if for some reason, my daughter chose to engage in some kind of sex work (webcam, BDSM domination, etc), I would, perhaps grudgingly, allow her free-will. I am not and cannot be the gatekeeper of my daughter's sexuality.

I'm scoring points by demolishing your credibility. And divvying the world into 'people who would be OK with their kids being sex workers' and 'the junior anti sex league' is at best disingenuous.

I have not stated anywhere on this thread that I would be particularly and especially OK with my daughter being a sex-worker. My full position is stated plainly in the paragraph above.

I see the fairness, on the other hand, in attacking my position as a sort of patriarchal oppression, but I have been careful to be gender-neutral. I liken a child being a whore to a child being a drug dealer - an antisocial and unproductive trade (for reasons already articulated) that as a close family member and indeed parent I am obligated to attempt to curtail. I would call this utilitarian rather than fascist, although a fascist would do the same for slightly different reasoning.

I can understand your position.

[Longbowman]

That was not the main point of my post. I said that there is an example of prostitutes being called "Goddesses of Mercy" in Japan. While I realize that my Babylonian example is based on old scholarship, they may (more-like highly probably) have practiced sacred prostitution in the Mediterranean in ancient times. This is hardly the main point of my post. Mingle pretty much stated that prostitutes were universally slaves. That statement is erroneous.

'Highly probably' is I think wishful thinking from you. In either case it wasn't a job the high castes would have entered, which was most of my point. And I don't think Mingle said or hinted at the idea they were universally slaves. You've misrepresented what he wrote. A high percentage were, of course, varying by historical era and society, which is at least a relevant point - sex slaves still exist today, of course - but we can separate the institution from sexual slavery.

If you recall, in that other thread where we discussed this, I said that my daughter engaging in sex-work would certainly not be ideal, but if she were to engage in that, I would hope that she would be safe and protect herself, using safe sex practices. That's all. I would in no way encourage my daughter to take up that line of work. And, being of comfortable means, I don't see that really ever being an issue. My future wife and hypothetical daughter will be taken care of. At the same time, if for some reason, my daughter chose to engage in some kind of sex work (webcam, BDSM domination, etc), I would, perhaps grudgingly, allow her free-will. I am not and cannot be the gatekeeper of my daughter's sexuality.

I have not stated anywhere on this thread that I would be particularly and especially OK with my daughter being a sex-worker. My full position is stated plainly in the paragraph above.

Good that you don't want this for your child - but can't you see? it makes you a hypocrite, which was my initial point in the thread. If you wouldn't want your child to do it, don't encourage it in the children of others. That way, when another person tries to entice your child into prostitution (or drug dealing, or whatever) you can rightly come down on them - you've held up your end of the social contract, after all.

I can understand your position.

Thank you. It's also perhaps important to note that most radical feminists also don't approve of sex work, so there are many schools of thought that come to the same conclusion here - and many that don't.

At the end of the day, the Nazis had brothels in concentration camps and elsewhere, so they weren't totally averse to the practice anyhow, although they didn't tolerate it in their offspring.

[RenaRyuguu]

They just need it there's nothing you can do about it.