Is P4p Immoral?

Sinapse said:

Why would you assume that sex is better for men and that women "get less" from it? Do you know anything about the female orgasm? Spoiler alert - they can have FAR more pleasure than we can.



When you go to a ball or a social dance club you would be VERY foolish to believe that your dance partner will never take another dance partner.





First let's change "meaningless" to "casual" since meaning is created by the person in the act. I find nearly all sex meaningful - I can't possibly imagine what meaningless sex would look like or be.

Second, I think you are confusing:
1. What patriarchy, monogamy, and capitalism have taught you about sexuality

with

2. Genetics.

There is a TON of research that directly contradicts your unqualified assertion that women don't crave casual sex. For starters I urge you to look at:

sneak copulation and female promiscuity

penis and testicle size in primates
"Human testis size indicates that males evolved under conditions in which their sperm competed inside females... But the larger human penis suggests that hominids needed to keep females with choice sexually satisfied"

the penis as a semen scoop
"the penis acts as a "semen displacement device" and its shape has evolved in part to displace another man's semen."

The extreme competition of your sperm (did you know that 99% of your sperm has the sole purpose of 'kamikaze'-ing other men's sperm and only 1% of your sperm actually seeks out and fertilizes eggs)

There are a lot more resources about this topic as well. Basically all of it concludes that humans are inherently promiscuous, monogamy is NOT the natural state of humans, and women, although more deceptive / sneaky about their promiscuity, like and practice casual sex just as much, if not more, than the average man. The physiology and evolution of our genitals proves that we are inherently competitive and that women are very promiscuous and will seek out sex and sperm. You say there is "no benefit" but this is patently false - females benefit when they have sperm competition happening inside of them, creating an environment where the best genes fertilize her egg. It is in the females best interest to have a provider male who will give her and her offspring food, while secretly copulating with the genetically fittest men in the population. In short, women are hard-wired to make nice beta males rear children which aren't theirs - and that's genetically RIGHT.

This is corroborated in recent studies where women have MORE sexual partners than men.

Tl; dr, women are promiscuous, and like sex just as much, if not more than men. Anything to the contrary is a myth propagated by patriarchy, just like burqas and chastity belts.



Not sure which self-help books you're referring to here. Reference and quotes? Show me something specific and then we can actually discuss it. These vague value judgments are meaningless.



This is known as an "argument from personal incredulity" and is a common fallacy. Basically, "I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false." This is a common argument against pickup. Rather than it not working, you simply don't believe it works. Well..... it does. I could show you first-hand.

I've SEEN it work with men who are not at all physically attractive. @Dorian Gray and my good friend R is a short, balding, funny looking older dude with a gap tooth and very little Japanese, and he's slept with hundreds upon hundreds of fit young hairdressers, models, and hostesses. There are countless guys who are physically unattractive and yet women still fall for them. Luckily for men, we can still strike high above our physical "level" if we get everything else under control and improve our game.

However, I do agree with you that any "super secret technique" is not likely to be true. Instead, any pickup book worth its salt with teach you to improve yourself in every way you can, let go of your insecurities if you can't change them, learn about the women you want to meet, and proactively go out and meet them. I can't see how that's despicable, a "lie" or a "super secret technique".

And please, if you're going to make sweeping claims like "women don't like casual sex" or "pickup is all lies" at least TRY to support it with evidence of some sort.

Click to expand...

Sinapse said:

To get things back on topic



My question now, to anyone who uses p4p:

Given that there are many situations where women are coerced, forced against their will, trafficked across borders or from the provinces to the city with false promises of jobs, held under false debts like inflated rents, and generally just controlled and operated by the yakuza (who use the profits for lots of other illicit and violent acts), how can you go to a prostitute with a clean conscience? Chances are the girl you are paying money to have sex with is doing so against her will or if not, is vastly underpaid for her services and receives pennies on the dollar of what the brothel actually charges. Even if only 1/10 prostitutes are forced into it, how can you support that industry and live with yourself knowing that you might have slept with one of those women?

Click to expand...

Sinapse said:

Everybody starts out a stranger. You have to meet people before you sleep with them. Sometimes it takes a long time, but usually, it doesn't need to. Your statement (when you peel back the unsubstantiated value judgments) basically means:

1. I disapprove of meeting people when there is no introduction or social pretense for meeting them
2. I don't think it's possible for a woman to be attracted to a man shortly after meeting him
3. If a man and a woman have sex, the man is "taking advantage" of the woman.

Argument 1) is a matter of personal choice. If you prefer to never reach out and talk to someone you don't know, you might live a very strange and insular lifestyle, but I'm ok with it. I would, however, strongly question your motives if you tell other people they can't talk to strangers.

Argument 2) is another example of "argument from personal incredulity" and still is a fallacy. Just because you do not believe it is possible does not mean it is not possible.

Argument 3) Is more patriarchal bullshit. It seems like people can't get over the fact that men and women BOTH like sex and BOTH benefit from it, even IF it happens quickly. I'm not sure what the time scale of the encounter or the manner of meeting has anything to do with the inherent act of sex or transaction of value between two consenting adults.

Click to expand...

Dorian Gray said:

Yeah, to be clear, I don't have any illusions about anything I say or do stopping people from patronizing the very lucrative sex industries (in Japan especially, a massive part of the culture), neither would I look down on or negatively judge anyone who does so.

You said it was Immoral..........and as the animals we are.....people look down on people with different morals as themselves.......if you think I'm wrong.....go for a walk in Syria.......

Myself......I do p4p for fantasy purposes and game for more than a one niter.....
I'm not negative for either......nor do I see anything wrong with either.......
I don't like paying for commodities either but sometimes you have no choice......(food for example) but to say one or both is immoral is a childish standpoint imho

Click to expand...

Dorian Gray said:

just4fun: I don't look down on them, I just wonder why they seem to feel the need to pay, and I feel bad that women are often exploited and abused in these industries. Is "" really any little girl's dream job? I know there are feminists who've supported themselves with sex work that's voluntarily chosen, but even in that case I think...why were they able to get customers? If everyone was a gamer there would be no market, and those women would have to do some other kind of work, which would probably benefit everyone more.

As for fulfilling fantasies, I'm pretty sure most of them can be fulfilled for free...except perhaps financial domination, which I guess is a thing now

Click to expand...

Sinapse said:

I have yes. I've slept with kyabajo and some chicks who I suspect were off-duty prostitutes. I didn't pay them, they came voluntarily. Whats your point?

Click to expand...

Sinapse said:

Second, I think you are confusing:
1. What patriarchy, monogamy, and capitalism have taught you about sexuality

with

2. Genetics.

There is a TON of research that directly contradicts your unqualified assertion that women don't crave casual sex. For starters I urge you to look at:

sneak copulation and female promiscuity

penis and testicle size in primates
"Human testis size indicates that males evolved under conditions in which their sperm competed inside females... But the larger human penis suggests that hominids needed to keep females with choice sexually satisfied"

the penis as a semen scoop
"the penis acts as a "semen displacement device" and its shape has evolved in part to displace another man's semen."

The extreme competition of your sperm (did you know that 99% of your sperm has the sole purpose of 'kamikaze'-ing other men's sperm and only 1% of your sperm actually seeks out and fertilizes eggs)

There are a lot more resources about this topic as well. Basically all of it concludes that humans are inherently promiscuous, monogamy is NOT the natural state of humans, and women, although more deceptive / sneaky about their promiscuity, like and practice casual sex just as much, if not more, than the average man. The physiology and evolution of our genitals proves that we are inherently competitive and that women are very promiscuous and will seek out sex and sperm. You say there is "no benefit" but this is patently false - females benefit when they have sperm competition happening inside of them, creating an environment where the best genes fertilize her egg. It is in the females best interest to have a provider male who will give her and her offspring food, while secretly copulating with the genetically fittest men in the population. In short, women are hard-wired to make nice beta males rear children which aren't theirs - and that's genetically RIGHT.

Click to expand...

User#16452 said:

I'm perhaps one of the most qualified people to answer this. I have paid for sexual services, I have been paid for them. I have had PUAs approach me, I have been a wingman and read PUA literature.

Here is my thoughts on this matter: unless you define what moral guidelines you are using, it is impossible to answer this topic as everyone will have different moral opinions based on their own experiences. This just seems like another endless PUA vs P4P thread.



I think you need to go back and read "Sex At Dawn" as this having "beta" males raise the children was not part of the book. Nor was the idea of women secretly copulating with the fittest men.

Instead "Sex At Dawn", supports polyamorous ongoing relationships and the idea of an entire village raising a child. In this framework it makes sense for women to want to have lots of sexual partners and so lots of children.

However, this is not a situation that we currently live in. Currently, if a woman becomes pregnant by a one night stand there is a high chance that she will be left the raise the child herself, should she wish to keep it. Similarly, our brains tell us to eat lots of sugar as fruit can be a rare resource in the wild. As sugar is now plentiful, we have to go against our desires to consume it continuously.

Essentially, what I am trying to say is that while women no doubt do crave to have lots short sexual sessions with many men in the primitive part of their mind, this was working towards the goal of becoming pregnant with the knowledge that she would not be alone to raise the child. Unfortunately this is not the set-up of our current society. Now it makes more sense to have sex with one partner who you know will stay with you through pregnancy, since living alone is also common these days. Also, many people like to live with their partner in place of living with their family, which would have been done in the "Sex At Dawn" situation.

Click to expand...

Solong said:

I don't get what makes you the MOST qualified person.

Click to expand...

User#16452 said:

Please read past the first line, I do answer this!

Though to be clear, I do mean on the board.

Click to expand...

Solong said:

I don't believe you are the most qualified person, even on this board. Though I will concede you may have some experience and opinions to share.

Click to expand...

Solong said:

By the way, now we have birth control pills, condoms, abortion, as well as more knowledge of alternative sex practices such as anal or oral sex.

In a modern industrialized society, women DECIDE when they get pregnant.

Click to expand...

User#16452 said:

May have some experience? Hmmm...

Click to expand...

Sinapse said:

Even if only 1/10 prostitutes are forced into it, how can you support that industry and live with yourself knowing that you might have slept with one of those women?

Click to expand...

Hamerare said:

Hmm trés suspicieux....... Mon oueil........

A literary character called Dorian Yates pops up suddenly with remarkably strong stylistic and ideological similarities to Espanish then almost immediately starts a new thread based on a comment in another........ comme les poulets ont des dents

Click to expand...

Hamerare said:

Yup un trés bizarre choix DE username.

These PUA therapists are too busy plagiarising others manuals to have time to read any meaningful literature.

It also reinforces suspicions that most PUA are closet gay

Trés bizarre

Click to expand...