Having different opinions shouldn't be a barrier to an effective discussion. While someone might be offended at your words,I don't get offended. ( I consider such people idiots)
I'm stunned. Someone actually shares my opinion to such a degree? I'm so used to defending myself from the slavering hordes when I put forward this opinion, I don't really know what to do now.
That would be fine if we were frogs ( not to offend but because frogs are provided with what they need in order to partially survive). Humans are one of the most dependant animals. Let me start by the female side. It's a mother's duty to breastfeed her child. Aside from nutrients, there are benefits so crucial to the child's health that formulas can't provide as mothers milk provides antibodies that reduce ear infection,more easily digested, reduces risk of sudden infant death syndrome and even later in life, it reduces the risk of obesity, asthma and type 2 diabetes and even leukemia. Less diseases means a child's more likely to have a better psychological, and emotional development. It's a father and a mother's duty to guarantee their child's health for no other reason than his existence is a result of their actions.
I happen to disagree. If that really was the case, we wouldn't have abortions or adoptions now would we? Even though humans are extremely dependent upon proper support, it wouldn't matter to me, humans should legally have the right to choose. Did you know there have been several cases where a male has been raped by a woman and has been forced to pay child support for the child since the mother decided to keep it? Just as women have the right to decide whether or not they want a child in their life, so should men. A man who doesn't want to be in his child's life probably will do more harm than good in my opinion anyway. Regardless, I don't think that it should be a legal duty for biological parents to be in the lives of their children, regardless of my moral thoughts on the matter. Addressing your other point. There is wet-nursing if it really comes to it for breast-feeding among other options. There are always other options.
well, can you blame that society as a whole for not offering them a alternative? I.e. no workplace, family to feed and so on? I think that it's degrading because that woman is a human and any human should be treated as humanly possible as it can be, right? By accepting rape as degrading only to a few, you'll accept the existrnce of a excepn that shoudn't be allowed to exist, right? But that children is made from two? From what I know, in some countries, you can abort, legally, up to a certain time (week/day). After that, I think that that foetus/unborn baby presents the particularities to be considered as being part of human race. And.. If case of reverse rape, I don't see a solution..but, it's a interesting 3xample.
So, essentially, a man should be able to disavow a child up until the last moment a woman is legally allowed to abort her child?
Your first point is rather strange; why do you believe they have no alternative? You are making assumptions you have no basis for. And, again, you are using collectivist ideas: you say it is 100% societies fault for not offering them an alternative. Definitely. You are disregarding many things. First off, not only poor people with no choice do this. Many women with plenty of other options attach themselves to rich men to leech off of them, trading their body for money. And many rich women have "boy toys" who do the same. In cases where they actually don't have any other option, as in they will starve to death and die if they don't do it, isn't it great that this opportunity exists? Or are you saying they'd be better of dead? Your second point is, again, using collectivist ideas. Of course everyone should be treated equally. And I'm not saying rape is degrading to only a few. It is degrading to everyone who is a victim of it. But unless you can prove the existence of a collective subconcious, genetic memories or a psychic hive mind, a woman being raped in Africa does not degrade Hillary Clinton in the USA. The unnamed woman has been degraded, and gone through something no person should ever have to. But other women don't automatically suffer from it. This is stealing other peoples pain, and making it about yourself. Frankly to me, it is disgusting, and one of the main reasons I despise modern day feminism.
I don't think this is real news. For one, I have not heard of a billionaire by the name of Chen Shan, even if he's 2nd Gen. However, if he will pay me USD1 million every time he wants to sleep with me, I'd take it even when he looks like that. USD1 million for like 6 hours? Sign me up anytime! USD1 million is a minimum, though. His face is kind of revolting. Sorry, but I'm a typical girl with debts and money's extremely important in my life. Love and pride don't pay the bills or the debts.
The one for Rola Takizawa is fake though from what I've heard , didn't do CIA on it so ... just stating may be fake
You're basically criticising Western Upper class from the 19th century downwards. Literally, people married for money, well mostly women who had no choice
I'm making assumptions about that because I do believe that there are few cases where prostitution is really 'enjoyed' by those who prostitute themselves. I'm saying that you have no alternatives in a country (imaginary one) where you don't have a basic education, no access to a job and resources. In those cases you have few options: do a crime (steal, murder), die or sell what you have to sell (material things, work/skills, your body and so on). You're talking like every person posses the necessary knowledge to make decisions when most of them don't have even the basic one. We, as humans, don't have hereditary memories. So, we must acquire that knowledge by using our own experience or others. So no, for me, some prostitutes don't have an alternative and are pressed by stringent needs. A society that doesn't care for its members, for me, is a sick society. You were talking about something as a whole. I've talked about liberty, right? Sorry but, liberty, for me, includes liberty of tought and only the liberty of tought and decision can born free humans. You're saying a strange thing. When you have to renounce at your morals, integrity and honesty, feelings and hope ... Are you doing that because of how good it feels? Maybe. But not all think and acts the same. I'm talking about the other side, the side that is, somehow, hided in your comment. So what if there are rich men who can 'afford' that? There are people who will fuck only for a piece of bread, for ... By 'great opportunity' you use that as an excuse and i'm trying to point out that, only those who are free from all points of view should 'enjoy' that money. The rest shoudn't be cornered by society and actual facts to do that, if they trully don't want to do it. Do they have to suffer!? Are natural rights something that now exists, now don't? Are you saying that, when you hear of a actual case of murder/crime you remain indifferent? Why? Because you don't suffer? Really? No! That one coud be you and, for preventing that, even if only because you fear that suffering, you'll try more, do more. Of course, emotions shoudn't be forced but.. Or you care, or you don't. But, we're talking about suffering for other humans because you are a human and because, actually, you're just superimposing yourself with that person, you're just 'borrowing' that person skin. Of course, other persons don't suffer from that actual pain, pyshic or mental but, the sole fact that you use the word 'degraded' shows that, actually, you put a priece on humans? Degraded, as in ... Minus value? That human has Less value? Not really. That value is a whole that, by the sole action of another, suffer a loss. If you see soneone as a human, you shoudn't make concessions if you have the possibility to do so. Stealing others pain? Oh, no, you don't make that pain your own. Is one of the two: you feel pain or you don't. Even if it's an imaginary pain that pain is yours. Like in case of ideas, can you say that you 'own' a idea? In raport/relation to others, maybe. In raport/relation with yourself, definetly/ of course, you can decide if you want to 'kill' that idea or let it live. Yes, another woman doesn't automatically suffer from it. But, what does that mean? Should that fact be ignored just because they are... Strangers? If you don't know, you din't suffer, but, if you hear about that and you remain indifferent... i see that as a problem. I know that i'm not really clear, but, at least, I'm trying yo have a discussion, right? No, that's about the legality to have an abortion. And, the woman shoudn't be the sole decision factor, the other parent should say something. Period. But, in the end, the final decision is the mother's one as she is the one who bears the child. And, after the child is born, what fault does he/she haves? So, for that child interest, the one who didn't want it should be held responsible. Why? Because it wasn't a artifical insemination. Now, there's a problem: should the sperm donor be responsible for the child or not!? Got other solutions?
I'm not sure i get the point of this topic. Are you surprised or disgusted that women can go with an ugly billionaire? Have you seen his face? He's been dealt a shitty physical hand, let him play his "rich boy" cards. Aren't the women to blame? It's not about feminism or anything, just venality. He didn't bought them as slaves, he just bought what they were ready to offer. I'd be more surprised if no girl wanted him. And the lucky one who'll marry him will probably be one of the happiest fictional character of all china.
But the thing is, the other parent has no say in an abortion. So if the parent has no desire to even meet the child (kind of like adoption) then he should have no legal obligation to do so. Consider that children can be placed up for adoption quite easily and the mother can wash her hands of the matter, so should the husband be able to do so. Also, imagine this situation, say a wife of a wealthy man can't conceive because of some physical problem with her body. So in order to address this another women bears the baby for them. But because it was born of a different woman, technically in many countries and states current civil law, she is the birth mother and not the biological parents and thus she has all legal right to the child. This is called surrogacy which is something that is happening with more and more frequency the world over. It seems quite evident to me that the traditional outlook on parents and child support in the modern era is a flawed one. There needs to be a more modern interpretation where the "parents" of a child can be more readily defined as the legal primary caretakers of a child and that those who do not wish to be the parent, may choose not to be the parent if they choose so in the midst of the pregnancy.
All will change when artificial womb became a norm and male birth control became effective. People are angry because he is ugly but if he is like the man in the Shades of Grey it would be a best seller. He is a sadist and yet that book is a best seller among women. I agree the news is somewhat doubtful as if you are rich you could change your face. Even middle class could afford it to some degree.
You are trying, yes. And so am I. But you're pretty difficult to understand, so sorry if I get some things wrong. You seem to misunderstand me as having no empathy with the people who have to go through this. I do. You also seem to misunderstand me when I say your assumptions are incorrect, in that not only people with no choice do this. Enjoyment of prostitution isn't neccessary to do it, even though there are other options. Obviously prostitution happens most often to people who have no choice; that's why it's neccessary to have legal protection for prostitutes, to organize it on a state level. In shitty countries, where society doesn't help its members, obviously this can't happen. And obviously it is a bad thing for a society to not help its members. But an individual has a duty to themselves to do what is right for themselves. calling it a "great opportunity" is not an excuse. if you truly have no other choice, in a society like the one you describe, then prostitution is a great opportunity, because the alternative is death. There is nothing inherently wrong with prostitution, because ones body belongs to oneself. As an individual with no power, one can only make decisions about ones own body and mind. Who you are and what you are. As for the use of the word "degraded", that word is not really mine. It is used all the time in the western world when talking about any act that is against women. I agree it's a rather poor word, but it isn't really about value or putting a price on humans. It's just a word used to refer to the harm that women suffer from an act. You can replaced the word "degraded" with "harmed" in my comment. I don't believe human life has a price; focusing too much on that word is pretty meaningless. I do know how empathy works, by the way. And of course I feel for another person when something happens to them. Rape, murder, violence... of course most of us have empathy. When I say that someone is "stealing" that pain, I'm talking about the way people use it to further an agenda, the way third wave feminism does with their collectivism. I am not saying that poor woman in Africa should be ignored; of course not! I'm only saying that no other woman is directly harmed by it. I'm saying that one single person being harmed by it is supposed to be enough. Other than that, I'm not sure about what you're accusing me of in the middle part; I'm not some sociopath who wants people to feel dead inside. I'm just for the idea that having a worst option is better than having no options. And that an individual has a duty to themselves to try and make a better life for themselves.