06 Nov 2013, 9:46 pm
07 Nov 2013, 2:57 am
07 Nov 2013, 9:48 am
WP ladies possess absolutely impeccable morals. 
However, Feminists do seem to have a knack for getting around moral issues through creative nuances of vocabulary.
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/800/1/WRAP_Sa ... urists.pdf
Jacqueline Sánchez Taylor wrote:
The behaviour of ‘First World’ women who travel to poor countries for sex with local men is generally interpreted in a very different way from that of ‘First World’ men who engage in the same practices. The tourist woman who buys meals and gifts for her local sexual partner is enjoying a ‘romance’, not using a prostitute. In academic studies as well as journalistic accounts, traditional notions of essential gender identity often inform an interpretation of the tourist women as passive innocents,‘used’ by local men who are actively seeking money, a ticket off the island and maybe love, as well as sexual experience. Thus they have been sympathetically described as ‘lonely women’ whose ‘economic and social ability to travel alone is being exploited by Caribbean tourism’ and by the ‘beach boys’ who offer the possibility either of a ‘holiday romance’ or ‘sexual harassment’ (Momsen 1994:116). Indeed, few studies refer to the phenomenon of ‘female sex tourism’, but prefer instead the term ‘romance tourism’ (Dahles and Bras 1999; Momsen 1994; Pruitt and LaFont 1995; Meisch 1995). Some even suggest that ‘romance tourism’ has positive features, in that it supposedly provides a space for challenging traditional gender roles:
Pruitt and LaFont, 1995 wrote:
Whereas sex tourism serves to perpetuate gender roles and reinforce power relations of male dominance and female subordination, romance tourism in Jamaica provides an arena for change. By drawing on their respective traditional gender models as well as their imaginings and idealisations of each other and new possibilities the partners in these relationships explore new avenues for negotiating femaleness and maleness.
See? When men do it, it is "bad." When women do it, it is "good."
By giving a boy meals and gifts, a Feminist is enjoying a "romance", and not paying for coitus. Her conscience is perfectly clear. No "perpetuating gender roles and reinforcing power of male dominance and female subordination" is involved. Plus, they're "using their imaginings and idealisations to explore new avenues for negotiating femaleness and maleness." What could possibly be more wholesome?
Last edited by ArrantPariah on 07 Nov 2013, 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
07 Nov 2013, 11:27 am
07 Nov 2013, 11:40 am
07 Nov 2013, 3:46 pm
puddingmouse wrote:
I don't have every value I have and do everything I do because of feminism. It actually has little to do with why I would never pay for sex.
I know myself well enough to know that I won't ever pay for sex, like how I know I'm not neurotypical. I'm a complicated person, but some things about me are obvious and lifelong.
I know myself well enough to know that I won't ever pay for sex, like how I know I'm not neurotypical. I'm a complicated person, but some things about me are obvious and lifelong.
Sorry, but I just can't help imagining you, 30 years from now, relaxing on a tropical beach, with one handsome young man gently massaging your feet, whilst another lovingly peels grapes and feeds them to you.
07 Nov 2013, 3:54 pm
07 Nov 2013, 5:32 pm
ArrantPariah wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
I don't have every value I have and do everything I do because of feminism. It actually has little to do with why I would never pay for sex.
I know myself well enough to know that I won't ever pay for sex, like how I know I'm not neurotypical. I'm a complicated person, but some things about me are obvious and lifelong.
I know myself well enough to know that I won't ever pay for sex, like how I know I'm not neurotypical. I'm a complicated person, but some things about me are obvious and lifelong.
Sorry, but I just can't help imagining you, 30 years from now, relaxing on a tropical beach, with one handsome young man gently massaging your feet, whilst another lovingly peels grapes and feeds them to you.
Whilst thinking I'm a fat slag and wanting to steal my purse. No thanks.
I'm thinking maybe I'll have a girlfriend once I stop being less attractive than 99% of women my age. By 50 or so, a lot of them will catch up to me in the ugly stakes and maybe some of the lezzers will be more open-minded about me being bi, since they'd have seen more of life. That or I'll drink, a lot.*
*this is self-effacing humour
07 Nov 2013, 7:14 pm
puddingmouse wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
I don't have every value I have and do everything I do because of feminism. It actually has little to do with why I would never pay for sex.
I know myself well enough to know that I won't ever pay for sex, like how I know I'm not neurotypical. I'm a complicated person, but some things about me are obvious and lifelong.
I know myself well enough to know that I won't ever pay for sex, like how I know I'm not neurotypical. I'm a complicated person, but some things about me are obvious and lifelong.
Sorry, but I just can't help imagining you, 30 years from now, relaxing on a tropical beach, with one handsome young man gently massaging your feet, whilst another lovingly peels grapes and feeds them to you.
Whilst thinking I'm a fat slag and wanting to steal my purse. No thanks.
I'm thinking maybe I'll have a girlfriend once I stop being less attractive than 99% of women my age. By 50 or so, a lot of them will catch up to me in the ugly stakes and maybe some of the lezzers will be more open-minded about me being bi, since they'd have seen more of life. That or I'll drink, a lot.*
*this is self-effacing humour
The problem is, they think terrible things about young, skinny ladies, too. People with bad attitudes will think terrible things no matter what. It's just part of being an unhappy human. Very few people really enjoy the work they have to do to survive and what they like doing the most, they can't' make money at so it just becomes a hobby. Or, you could just find a fat, ugly older man at such a place and if has the audacity to think that about you, you can get even by thinking the same about him. That sounds like a solid plan.
07 Nov 2013, 8:48 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Or, you could just find a fat, ugly older man at such a place and if has the audacity to think that about you, you can get even by thinking the same about him. That sounds like a solid plan.
Well, I think that this sometimes happens after 30 years of marriage. No need even to plan for it.
Oh, wait a minute. You're talking about going to one of those female sex tourist places to hook up with a fat, ugly old man?
Well, how about an aging, one-legged Reggae artist?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBQYRELI7hY[/youtube]
I suspect that the obesity rates aren't especially high for old men in those places.
07 Nov 2013, 8:55 pm
07 Nov 2013, 9:04 pm
08 Nov 2013, 1:23 am
ArrantPariah wrote:
WP ladies possess absolutely impeccable morals.
However, Feminists do seem to have a knack for getting around moral issues through creative nuances of vocabulary.
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/800/1/WRAP_Sa ... urists.pdf
See? When men do it, it is "bad." When women do it, it is "good."
By giving a boy meals and gifts, a Feminist is enjoying a "romance", and not paying for coitus. Her conscience is perfectly clear. No "perpetuating gender roles and reinforcing power of male dominance and female subordination" is involved. Plus, they're "using their imaginings and idealisations to explore new avenues for negotiating femaleness and maleness." What could possibly be more wholesome?
However, Feminists do seem to have a knack for getting around moral issues through creative nuances of vocabulary.
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/800/1/WRAP_Sa ... urists.pdf
Jacqueline Sánchez Taylor wrote:
The behaviour of ‘First World’ women who travel to poor countries for sex with local men is generally interpreted in a very different way from that of ‘First World’ men who engage in the same practices. The tourist woman who buys meals and gifts for her local sexual partner is enjoying a ‘romance’, not using a prostitute. In academic studies as well as journalistic accounts, traditional notions of essential gender identity often inform an interpretation of the tourist women as passive innocents,‘used’ by local men who are actively seeking money, a ticket off the island and maybe love, as well as sexual experience. Thus they have been sympathetically described as ‘lonely women’ whose ‘economic and social ability to travel alone is being exploited by Caribbean tourism’ and by the ‘beach boys’ who offer the possibility either of a ‘holiday romance’ or ‘sexual harassment’ (Momsen 1994:116). Indeed, few studies refer to the phenomenon of ‘female sex tourism’, but prefer instead the term ‘romance tourism’ (Dahles and Bras 1999; Momsen 1994; Pruitt and LaFont 1995; Meisch 1995). Some even suggest that ‘romance tourism’ has positive features, in that it supposedly provides a space for challenging traditional gender roles:
Pruitt and LaFont, 1995 wrote:
Whereas sex tourism serves to perpetuate gender roles and reinforce power relations of male dominance and female subordination, romance tourism in Jamaica provides an arena for change. By drawing on their respective traditional gender models as well as their imaginings and idealisations of each other and new possibilities the partners in these relationships explore new avenues for negotiating femaleness and maleness.
See? When men do it, it is "bad." When women do it, it is "good."
By giving a boy meals and gifts, a Feminist is enjoying a "romance", and not paying for coitus. Her conscience is perfectly clear. No "perpetuating gender roles and reinforcing power of male dominance and female subordination" is involved. Plus, they're "using their imaginings and idealisations to explore new avenues for negotiating femaleness and maleness." What could possibly be more wholesome?
I don't think it has to do so much with the genders involved, as it does with the voluntary nature of the natives in question and the semi-long term (i.e. more than half an hour) duration of the 'relationship.' There's a big difference between a man who goes to Bangladesh and gets scoped out by a young woman at a bar, who then sexes him up for the week while receiving locally-expensive gifts from him (still 'romance tourism,' even though its a first-world guy), and a man who goes to Bangladesh and uses an unwilling, underage prostitute who was sold to a pimp by her parents in order to pay off their loan sharks.
08 Nov 2013, 1:29 am
08 Nov 2013, 3:54 am
08 Nov 2013, 9:41 am
