The Pump & Dump Problem

[Cognisant]

With the #MeToo movement there's been a significant uptick in the number of rape accusations, particularly in America, and no doubt many of these accusations are legitimate, but not all. Now there's been discussion between reasonable people on either side of the gender divide and a particular scenario has been identified that may explain a lot of these accusations, the pump & dump problem.

Basically men having consensual sex with women and then dumping them afterwards, like having a one night stand.

To modern sensibilities this is a non-issue, we're not supposed to attribute any value to chastity because imposing that expectation upon women and shaming them for what men are praised for is blatant sexism and oppression. So if a man has sex with a woman and she consented to it then he hasn't taken anything from her, at least not anything of value, and he is of course free to leave her at any time, having had sex does not make him indebted to her in any way.

But despite modern sensibilities when a woman has been pumped & dumped she feels like she's been raped, she may have consented to the physical act at the time but she did so under false pretenses, she didn't consent to having a hookup she thought this man wanted a relationship with her and he used that pretense to bait his hook.

So what's the problem here?
Is it that modern women have double standards regarding their sensibilities, that they think they're allowed to be sexually liberal and men aren't. Or is it that modern sensibilities allows men to dishonor women without consequence?

Historically men may have been praised by their friends for getting laid but in polite society this practice was very strongly looked down upon and being accused of dishonoring a woman was a serious accusation with serious consequences. These consequences stemmed from the understanding that a woman's chastity has value and that by using her for fun he has in effect taken something from her and on that basis recompense is due.

So what do you think, should women "man up" and learn to take accountability for their own actions even if those actions were under false pretenses, like how if a man gets used by a woman it's his fault for being a rube.

Or has the sexual liberation of women actually been the liberation of men from consequence such that women are now making false rape accusations because it's the only way they can strike back for being misled, used and discarded?

 

[birdsnestfern]

Every situation is so different, what I know so far is...

Be aware that owners of bars and even bartenders themselves are often the ones that put the Mickeys in drinks, (of both sexes) and its not always random people in the bar nearby, so there is something wrong with that scenario.
People were waking up the next day unable to account for anything and nobody was near them to put the date rape drug in their drink. So, beware of that. Its never happened to me personally. But, I haven't been in a bar since 1981, and my co worker and I each had a boiler maker (beer and whisky chaser) and I was a lightweight and nearly passed out on one of those, so I decided I'm not a person that likes night clubs at all, haven't been back since. (Well, except in Honolulu with my sister Disco dancing bars were kind of fun).

One other issue is that males very often tell a female he loves her just to hope she gives in to him, and then turns around and changes his mind or pretends he never said that. And some people are actually sex addicts, and have no control of themselves and just have to get it anyway they can.

I'm of the mind that Women should know how that works and not be naive about men and if they still want to play the game, definitely should think more like men do to turn the tables.

But, clearly, forced sex is different. Could she just talk him into 69 and convince him, he's going to be a Father otherwise?
That ought to be a mood breaker at least.

Yeah, I already think each person should be chosing for themselves basically what they do or don't want to do. Freedom.

I tend to believe women who are metoo victims though. If there are some that are not truthful, it doesn't make up for those that are.

Sex is supposed to be healthy.

 

[scorpiomover]

With the #MeToo movement there's been a significant uptick in the number of rape accusations, particularly in America, and no doubt many of these accusations are legitimate, but not all. Now there's been discussion between reasonable people on either side of the gender divide and a particular scenario has been identified that may explain a lot of these accusations, the pump & dump problem.

Basically men having consensual sex with women and then dumping them afterwards, like having a one night stand.

But despite modern sensibilities when a woman has been pumped & dumped she feels like she's been raped, she may have consented to the physical act at the time but she did so under false pretenses, she didn't consent to having a hookup she thought this man wanted a relationship with her and he used that pretense to bait his hook.

So what's the problem here?

1) The problem is very simple: The #MeToo movement has revealed that many powerful men raped a lot of women, and have used the popularity of 1-night-stands, to claim that women they raped were simply 1-night-stands.

That's very, very different to if you had a 1-night stand with a woman, because you probably would not end up in bed with a woman unless she wanted to, because you're not powerful & rich with high-priced lawyers and friends who in high places who would get you off the hook.

2) There is an additional problem, of women from upper-class families that have consensual sex with men from lower-class families, and then get caught, as to escape public humiliation of being caught associating with riff-raff, they lie and claim their paramour raped them.

3) There's an additional problem when a woman is gang-raped by an upper-class football team, and then falls pregnant, as the she will not be believed because her rapists are powerful and well-connected, and so she feels no choice but to pass the buck onto whoever is nearest and likely to not complain.

Is it that modern women have double standards regarding their sensibilities, that they think they're allowed to be sexually liberal and men aren't. Or is it that modern sensibilities allows men to dishonor women without consequence?

Neither. Modern sensibilities allow powerful people to dishonour non-powerful people without consequences, the same way that older societies allowed rich men to dishonour poor women without consequences.

Historically men may have been praised by their friends for getting laid but in polite society this practice was very strongly looked down upon and being accused of dishonoring a woman was a serious accusation with serious consequences. These consequences stemmed from the understanding that a woman's chastity has value and that by using her for fun he has in effect taken something from her and on that basis recompense is due.

In the past, men could not get away with abusing women from powerful families. Even if the women themselves were treated poorly by their family, if anyone was able to maltreat any member of the family, man or woman, it made the family seem weak. So if any member of a powerful family was abused, the family used their power to make that person suffer, and publicly, so that everyone was aware of what happened if you crossed that family.

But, if the man or woman was a "person of no consequence", then it was easy for a powerful man, or powerful woman, to abuse the victim and get away with it.

So what do you think,

I think we need to have an open and honest conversation about the type of world we can expect to live in, when the rich & powerful are able to subvert the law in their interest.

Also, when all too often, the courts favour poor people in order to address some glaring faults in the legal code due to major negligence and neglect by the legislature, so the legislature can escape being charged with manslaughter and being sent to prison.

 

[Black Rose]

A bar sounds like a dangerous place to be.

As I recently had that panic attack from my neighbor putting the THC in my drink.

 

[Cognisant]

1) The problem is very simple: The #MeToo movement has revealed that many powerful men raped a lot of women, and have used the popularity of 1-night-stands, to claim that women they raped were simply 1-night-stands.

That's very, very different to if you had a 1-night stand with a woman, because you probably would not end up in bed with a woman unless she wanted to, because you're not powerful & rich with high-priced lawyers and friends who in high places who would get you off the hook.

I agree in principle but wealthy/political people have an image to consider, for example Trump could lure a woman to a hotel room under the pretense of a job interview and say he'll only give her the job if she has sex with him. That would be incredibly scummy but it's not rape nor coercion because no force or threats were involved, she's free to tell him to go fuck himself and leave.

If she agrees and he doesn't honor his end of the deal that's so bad it ought to be rape but it isn't, and I'll bet this sort of thing happens all the time.

If he attacks her that's rape but if they both come out of it with defensive wounds and she goes to the gynecologist for an emergency exam then the evidence is pretty damming. He might say the bruises/scratches are due to an accident but it's a hell of a coincidence that they occurred around the same time this woman accused him of rape and went to a doctor presenting, among other things, vaginal bruising.

Even if he wins the court case due to insufficient evidence, somehow, the details of the case will be made public and his political career and reputation will be forever ruined, so even if he did have an accident and she's just being an opportunist unless he can provide an alibi his best option is to try and settle this out of court with hush money.

Imo the rapists with the power to get away with it are gang members who present the ultimatum of the easy way, she lets him rape her, or the hard way, he calls in his buddies and they gang rape and possibly kill her. A group of gangbangers from the hood aren't going to care about their reputations, if anything the infamy is a bonus.

But, if the man or woman was a "person of no consequence", then it was easy for a powerful man, or powerful woman, to abuse the victim and get away with it.

What you're talking about there is having the ability to threaten someone into compliance, and yeah I suppose if Trump (he's just my go-to example for a wealthy man with no morals) employed a woman's whole family in various roles he could use that as leverage to coerce her into doing things. What makes this different to job interview thing is that he's threatening to take something away, not proposing an exchange of favors, and he could do this repeatedly at zero expense which makes it a fundamentally exploitative trade.

One other issue is that males very often tell a female he loves her just to hope she gives in to him, and then turns around and changes his mind or pretends he never said that.

That is the pump & dump, a hookup under false pretenses, if she knew it was just a hookup and took issue with it afterwards that's just being a hysterical female.

I'm of the mind that Women should know how that works and not be naive about men and if they still want to play the game, definitely should think more like men do to turn the tables.

What do you mean, how do men think?

I tend to believe women who are metoo victims though. If there are some that are not truthful, it doesn't make up for those that are.

Sexual misconduct is the only crime where someone is assumed to be guilty until proven innocent and this only applies to men, that's not right. I believe rape victims deserve justice but I don't think they're any more (or less) deserving of justice than other people who have been wronged and they should have to make their evidence based case in court like everybody else.

If someone says they were raped and neither they nor their assailant have defensive wounds and there's no other evidence that isn't purely circumstantial, well tough shit, everybody's got a right to a fair trial.

 

[birdsnestfern]

What do you mean, how do men think?

Most men see Women as shoes to try on more or less. The way Women shop for shoes or clothes, sometimes its an addictive behavior, sometimes its just because they are curious as hell and want to try on as many as they can for the experience.
I suppose some Women do that as well. And, its a release they needed. The carnal knowlege bit.

 

[Cognisant]

How communist of you, there's a problem so for the sake of equality let's make it everyone's problem, like if someone breaks their leg we need to break everyone else's leg so they don't have able-bodied privileged.

I think people need the freedom to have sex outside of marriage, but I also think we shouldn't encourage (rather actively discourage) people engaging in sex under false pretenses, it's not rape but it's still wrong. Men dishonoring women shouldn't just be chalked up to "boys will be boys" and equality by encouraging women to behave just as badly doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it everyone's problem.

There's also the fact that men and women simply are not the same, notably a man having a lot of partners isn't going to have it held against him in the same way it would be held against a woman. The difference being for a man having a lot of partners is a sign of success, because men have to work for it, whereas if a woman has a lot of partners that just means she's easy. No man wants to be in a serious relationship with an easy woman because they're seen as unreliable, immature, lacking self respect, etc.

Hypothetically if we lived in a world where men didn't have to work for it maybe this would go both ways, but human women are not Bonobos and even if they were men still care about raising their children so they need to be turned into Bonobos too, that territorial instinct needs to go. So now we have a society where everyone fucks all the time and children are raised communally, in effect we have solved the problem of men pump'n'dumping women by erasing romance altogether.

There is no more romance, no reason for a man to court a woman, therefore no way for him to mislead her with pretense, if he wants her he just fucks her and wipes her off when he's done for the next guy.

Alright I'm down

 

[birdsnestfern]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

Its only in theory. I wouldn't touch a Southern male, Chastity belt safe now for thirty years.

Neither the Frug nor the Pony.

 

[scorpiomover]

I agree in principle but wealthy/political people have an image to consider,

Yes. But there are plenty of things that can screw up a public image. E.G. accidentally saying that one owns a Gollywog doll, or saying that Trump was right about even one thing, any of which can and probably will trip the person up BEFORE they get anywhere near the level of "wealthy/political".

So by that point, they are used to covering their backsides on a regular basis.

So the only question is: How hard is it to cover your backside in a case of rape, especially if you planned it in advance? Considering that 98% of rape accusations result in the rapist going free, not very hard.

for example Trump could lure a woman to a hotel room under the pretense of a job interview and say he'll only give her the job if she has sex with him.

Are most of your job interviews held in hotel rooms? Even when you're meeting for work in a hotel, you're meeting in a conference room. Most women I knew in university, were of the opinion that if a guy gets you in his bedroom, it means he is trying to have sex with you. So if a guy asks to hold an interview in a hotel room, the vast majority of women know that means that sex is a requirement to get the job.

Where that could get into a case of rape, is that he invites her to his hotel room for the interview, at 10pm. She expects sex. So she puts on some sexy lingerie. When she gets there, there are 10 of his friends. They grab her by both arms and swiftly pull her through the door, and keep holding her while 2 more undress her. Then 2 hold her down while 3 more use her simultaneously, and they keep taking turns at holding her and raping her.

If she then takes it to court, there's no major bruising, because her arms were simply held in place. She went to a hotel room wearing lingerie, because of a job offer. So it appears to be completely consensual.

I agree in principle but wealthy/political people have an image to consider, for example Trump could lure a woman to a hotel room under the pretense of a job interview and say he'll only give her the job if she has sex with him. That would be incredibly scummy but it's not rape nor coercion because no force or threats were involved, she's free to tell him to go fuck himself and leave.

If she agrees and he doesn't honor his end of the deal that's so bad it ought to be rape but it isn't, and I'll bet this sort of thing happens all the time.

If he attacks her that's rape but if they both come out of it with defensive wounds and she goes to the gynecologist for an emergency exam then the evidence is pretty damming. He might say the bruises/scratches are due to an accident but it's a hell of a coincidence that they occurred around the same time this woman accused him of rape and went to a doctor presenting, among other things, vaginal bruising.

Even if he wins the court case due to insufficient evidence, somehow, the details of the case will be made public and his political career and reputation will be forever ruined, so even if he did have an accident and she's just being an opportunist unless he can provide an alibi his best option is to try and settle this out of court with hush money.

Imo the rapists with the power to get away with it are gang members who present the ultimatum of the easy way, she lets him rape her, or the hard way, he calls in his buddies and they gang rape and possibly kill her. A group of gangbangers from the hood aren't going to care about their reputations, if anything the infamy is a bonus.

It sounds like you feel disgruntled, as if "the bad men" get away with it, but you get punished unfairly.

But let's look at your reasoning: suppose a woman asks you up to her hotel room, has sex with you, and then claims rape. There's no bruising on her, or you. 98% of rape trials end up with the accused walking free. So why wouldn't you walk free?

Perhaps you believe this happens all the time? How many of your friends are in prison for rape? Unless at least 10 of your friends are in prison for rape, which I highly doubt, your evidence is not coming from a verifiable source, which suggests that it's coming from insinuations by the media.

Odds on, if a woman in today's world did invite you to her hotel room for sex, she means it. But you'd be so afraid of the media ramping up your fears that women don't want guys like you, that you'd convince yourself that she probably doesn't mean it, and would claim false rape, and so you'd turn her down.

So odds on, you've probably had a lot of invites to "come over", because you're intelligent, well-spoken, etc, and have not insinuated that you're ugly, which in most women's eyes means you're attractive. But because the media have ramped up your fears, you don't take them up on their offer, and even if you do, you're too afraid of being accused of rape, to even kiss the woman for a few seconds, just to see if she might respond positively.

Then these women feel sexually frustrated, and end up accepting other men's offers, who they don't find anywhere near as attractive as you, because that's their only choice for sex.

No wonder you're feeling frustrated.

 

[Cognisant]

It sounds like you feel disgruntled, as if "the bad men" get away with it, but you get punished unfairly.

How the fuck am I involved?

I'm just saying most rapists aren't powerful people, they're just scumbags, granted most powerful people are scumbags too but they're the rarefied scumbags, the top 1% most wealthy and influential.

For every one of them there's dozens of regular scumbags and that's assuming all powerful people are rapists and they probably aren't, they're wealthy and influential, people like that don't have a hard time getting laid and if they want to pay for it they can afford it.

You're pushing this narrative that it's all a power/class struggle and I'm sure there are cases like that but for the vast majority of the time it's not, it's just scumbags taking advantage of a vulnerable woman.

 

[scorpiomover]

It sounds like you feel disgruntled, as if "the bad men" get away with it, but you get punished unfairly.

How the fuck am I involved?

The way you've written, is that you seem quite p*ssed off at these sorts of allegations. At first, I thought it was just moral outrage. But you did these sorts of posts several times in the past. So it's not just a 1-off feeling with you.

I also considered if you were p*ssed off at the moral injustice of it. But you're talking about social injustices against heterosexual men, and IMHO, you seem to be a heterosexual man.

So it's not just a social injustice. It's a social injustice against people like you, that could happen to you sometime, and that seems to continue p*ssing you off.

I struggle to see why it would keep bugging you, unless it's repeatedly causing you problems, such as if you keep avoiding chatting women up and making moves on women, in case the woman makes an accusation of sexual assault, and you believe that then you'd get judged unfairly and be sentenced to prison for trying to get a girlfriend.

I'm just saying most rapists aren't powerful people, they're just scumbags, granted most powerful people are scumbags too but they're the rarefied scumbags, the top 1% most wealthy and influential.

For every one of them there's dozens of regular scumbags and that's assuming all powerful people are rapists and they probably aren't, they're wealthy and influential, people like that don't have a hard time getting laid and if they want to pay for it they can afford it.

I agree that in theory, it would make more sense if powerful people never raped people.

However, I remember reading that the heir to a 500 million dollar fortune and to a very famous make-up company, was convicted of committing 80 rapes. What young single woman wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is heir to half a billion dollars?

There was another case of a guy who had committed about 30 rapes, who turned out to be a top London DJ. For Londoners, the club scene is where you go, if you want to dance, take drugs, and have lots and lots of casual sex. The London club girls are incredibly hot and wear really skimpy outfits. The top DJs are the Kings of the club scence. Everyone in the club scene knows their names. Club albums are rated by the DJ who made them. The entire crowd cheers them when they come out. If you want to be surrounded by hot girls who will happily f**k you with no strings attached, become a top London DJ.

So the idea of either of these guys ever struggling to get laid, is practically nonsensical.

Also, when you look at the #MeToo movement, it's very, very clear that a lot of the men who raped dozens of women, were top people in several of the creative industries, which lots of young women are dying to get into.

So despite what we might think, the empirical evidence seems to show that our thinking is missing some element of our understanding.

You're pushing this narrative that it's all a power/class struggle

Well, I'm wondering why you aren't going out chatting up lots of women and making moves on them. You certainly wouldn't do anything that would justify the kinds of evidence for rape that you claimed are the cause of rape convictions. So then you have nothing to worry about. So why aren't you going out chatting up lots of women and making moves on them?

and I'm sure there are cases like that but for the vast majority of the time it's not, it's just scumbags taking advantage of a vulnerable woman.

If the vast majority if rapes were committed by non-powerful people, then considering how many people who are not powerful get arrested for really idiotic mistakes that provide ample evidence of their crimes, and also how many non-powerful people do really stupid things, then almost all rape cases should result in a slam dunk conviction.

So how do you explain that 98% of rape cases result in the rapist being found innocent by the jury?

Do you really believe that only 2% of women who say they were raped, are telling the truth?

 

[Cognisant]

No because I have a grasp of statistics you evidently lack.

If 2% of rape allegations result in a conviction of the remaining 98% some will be legitimate but there was insufficient evidence for a conviction, some will be spurious, and I imagine a lot of the cases that could lead to a conviction are settled out of court (hush money).

To say only 2% of cases were legitimate because only 2% of cases resulted in a conviction is assuming the system is infallible which is utterly absurd.

I struggle to see why it would keep bugging you, unless it's repeatedly causing you problems, such as if you keep avoiding chatting women up and making moves on women, in case the woman makes an accusation of sexual assault, and you believe that then you'd get judged unfairly and be sentenced to prison for trying to get a girlfriend.

I have a girlfriend.

But you're right that I am pissed off about certain things, like that theory birdsnestfern has that women should use men behaving badly as justification for their bad behaviour as if two wrongs somehow make a right.

 

[birdsnestfern]

As justification? No, but Women have the same level of power men do, its sexist to think we don't.

Women seduce men, men seduce women, it happens all the time.
I really don't know why people can't accept being useful to each other as long as it is done in a healthy agreed upon way?
Women are not slaves. Men are not slaves.

Not done in a revengeful manner, but in a "Everyone is a free spirit and equal manner" out of free choice.
People are not lumps of flesh that do your bidding. If they are, then give back to equalize the give and take. Its ok to be useful if there is reciprocity, not if there isn't.

You can use real love to give that which you want more of is all. Not into roles or role playing. I do see sex as a sometimes necessary release.

You really are not just your body in 3D world trying to gain things for your ego.
You are a spirit in a body trying to expand and balance a lot of different aspects of reality.

 

[Cognisant]

I think it's a matter of self respect, because the modern woman does not have self respect her chastity has no value and consequently there's no consequences for the modern man having consensual sex with her under false pretences.

The modern man has the same fault and consequently women don't respect him, by engaging in sex under false pretences the modern man dishonours both his victim and himself.

It's not that promiscuity itself is the problem but to regain his honour a man must demonstrate to women that he is able to refuse them and likewise women must demonstrate to men that they value their chastity and both should spurn and ostracise anyone that enages in sex under false pretences.

Otherwise what we have is a world where men and women prey upon each other selfishly and vye for dominance so they can take without having to give, both wanting to be loved but not to put their own heart at risk.

In a world of bonobos there is no romance, only meaningless fucking. We are not bonobos, we have meaningful romantic relationships and the foundation of our ability to do that is having some damn self respect.

 

[scorpiomover]

No because I have a grasp of statistics you evidently lack.

If 2% of rape allegations result in a conviction of the remaining 98% some will be legitimate but there was insufficient evidence for a conviction, some will be spurious, and I imagine a lot of the cases that could lead to a conviction are settled out of court (hush money).

To say only 2% of cases were legitimate because only 2% of cases resulted in a conviction is assuming the system is infallible which is utterly absurd.

Exactly my point. So there are a reasonable amount of legitimate cases. So if an employee has a 98% rate of failure, and a reasonable amount of cases that he deals with are legitimate, how competent is he? Would you not expect that he is either extremely incompetent, or extremely corrupt, or both?

I struggle to see why it would keep bugging you, unless it's repeatedly causing you problems, such as if you keep avoiding chatting women up and making moves on women, in case the woman makes an accusation of sexual assault, and you believe that then you'd get judged unfairly and be sentenced to prison for trying to get a girlfriend.

I have a girlfriend.

But you're right that I am pissed off about certain things, like that theory birdsnestfern has that women should use men behaving badly as justification for their bad behaviour as if two wrongs somehow make a right.

Fair enough that you have a girlfriend.

But, if you were just caring about social injustice towards others, with no interest in personal gain of your own, then why not care about the 25% of women who are raped? Do you think that men are more deserving of justice, because far more than 25% of men are put in prison due to allegations of false rape?

 

[scorpiomover]

I think it's a matter of self respect, because the modern woman does not have self respect her chastity has no value and consequently there's no consequences for the modern man having consensual sex with her under false pretences.

The modern man has the same fault and consequently women don't respect him, by engaging in sex under false pretences the modern man dishonours both his victim and himself.

Isn't that somewhat contradictory to your earlier statement that chastity has no value?

To modern sensibilities this is a non-issue, we're not supposed to attribute any value to chastity because imposing that expectation upon women and shaming them for what men are praised for is blatant sexism and oppression. So if a man has sex with a woman and she consented to it then he hasn't taken anything from her, at least not anything of value, and he is of course free to leave her at any time, having had sex does not make him indebted to her in any way.

I think it's a matter of self respect, because the modern woman does not have self respect her chastity has no value and consequently there's no consequences for the modern man having consensual sex with her under false pretences.

The modern man has the same fault and consequently women don't respect him, by engaging in sex under false pretences the modern man dishonours both his victim and himself.

It's not that promiscuity itself is the problem but to regain his honour a man must demonstrate to women that he is able to refuse them and likewise women must demonstrate to men that they value their chastity and both should spurn and ostracise anyone that enages in sex under false pretences.

Otherwise what we have is a world where men and women prey upon each other selfishly and vye for dominance so they can take without having to give, both wanting to be loved but not to put their own heart at risk.

In a world of bonobos there is no romance, only meaningless fucking. We are not bonobos, we have meaningful romantic relationships and the foundation of our ability to do that is having some damn self respect.

It sounds like your issue is that men and women today, have no self-respect. Self-respect is about treating your self with respect.

You also seem to suggest that if a modern woman has no self-respect, then her chastity also has no value because of her lack of self-respect, as if a person without self-respect has no value in any form. That in turn implies that if a person doesn't value themselves, that they have been raised to think they are nothing, then they are not worthy of being treated as if they are of value.

Your viewpoint thus suggests that people's value is entirely based on the value they place on themselves.

Yet you complain about people using others, as if they value themselves highly and value themselves more than others. So such a person HAS self-respect. They just don't have respect for others, and according to your suggestion, that entitles them to not care about the chastity of others, and to use them at will.

If you want to live in a world where people don't use each other, then they have to have respect for other people, even when those other people have been raised to think of themselves as not worthy of respect.

 

[birdsnestfern]

To experiment, allow yourself to indulge in sex, food, beauty, romance, power, just for the sake of experiencing each one. Even if just for a minute so that you will find out for yourself, the experience of each one. ​

Then ask, how long did those activities actually satisfy or make me happy? If they gave me temporary pleasure, did I give it back as well? Its about the flow, so you can open that gate of give and take. But it didn't last too long, so you had to figure out how to take pleasure and give it back again and again. ​

Since it probably lasted about as long as the newness of it wore off? Everything gets saturated. Even those high morals, too much is too much. Too little is too little. Nothing lasts in the human mind. ​

Life experiences in memory version are no longer there, regardless of how much love or romance there was once. ​

There is nothing we can hang on to, it all leaves us feeling empty, even relationships can make us feel lonelier than we were before. Life is all pretty illusive. No two ideals are really alike. ​

All you can trust is that life is here to teach us things, so that we evolve in our relationship to our intuition and source and let your heart bring its love out to the world ANYWAY. Thats all you can do. Don't grow hardened. Make yourself be a place that others grow to like. I guess thats all anyone can do. Its not what you can get from others, its what you can maintain in what you bring out in others. Grow the perspective so that you increase good feelings, not decrease them. ​

If you get pleasure, also give it back in ways that you can.

Evolve from pump and dump, to give and take pleasure in life?

But why not have a pleasured life, really, as long as it gives and gets equally.

Hedonism | Philosophy & Definition | Britannica

Definition of hedonism, a term for the various theories of conduct in which pleasure is the primary criterion.

www.britannica.com

The psychological doctrine that a human’s only aim is pleasure was effectively attacked by Joseph Butler. He pointed out that each desire has its own specific object and that pleasure comes as a welcome addition or bonus when the desire achieves its object. Hence the paradox that the best way to get pleasure is to forget it and to pursue wholeheartedly other objects. Butler, however, went too far in maintaining that pleasure cannot be pursued as an end. Normally, indeed, when one is hungry or curious or lonely, there is desire to eat, to know, or to have company. These are not desires for pleasure. One can also eat sweets when one is not hungry, for the sake of the pleasure that they give.

 

[Black Rose]

The modern man/woman

self-respect

chastity

There is no more promiscuity going on than in the past.

The urge to promiscuity has been repressed by society but that means it has always been there.

All this has to do with the biology of the matter.

Ten percent of people just want to fuck with no consequences.

And those that know the consequences already understand what it is they should be doing.

To blame men or women for this is stupid.

It is already known that it is the kids that suffer most from broken relationships.

Crappy people are crappy people who have kids and do not treat them right.

And that is not an issue of either gender.

Some men have self-respect and also some women.

We are only told that the majority does not but this is not the case.

In the past, all assholes were killed by the tribe but today we tolerate bad behavior just because we cannot enforce what were the common standards of the past.

That means we have a society where people do not know each other well enough to commit to a just system.

So people fear relationships because it is unknown who can be trusted to commit to each other.

That uncertainty is the result of industrialism.

We allow people to be dicks. And so cannot keep abuse from happening large scale.

The backlash is the alt-right and wokism.

People do not like it that people are dicks. But they have no control over others so must virtue signal to attract those like themselves.

That means calling out what they see as immoral.

But what they see as moral makes them look like dicks to the other side.

But this is all caused by only ten percent of the population with a dickish personality. (does not necessarily mean those who are promiscuous)

Most people are not dicks and they do not like those ten percent who are.

It is just they cannot do anything about them.

They have become a permanent feature of industrialized society.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Well, about trust, I've found you can NOT know who is going to be really compatable and work with your personality and who won't. I was not avoidant (I think the avoidant personality is why some people seem to push others away or seem like dicks).
I became avoidant after my marriage. The scary Jekyll side gets revealed in the abusive ex, and nobody should expect anyone to be committed under those circumstances. I wish I'd had a good marriage that I wanted to stay with. Did not happen.
My ENFJ boyfriend was based on commitment and lasted almost a decade as a couple. So I can be committed if the person isn't violent and there is actually love involved. But because I'm out of my element in the South, I simply do not want to know anyone, so I hermit. I guess I'm in the dark night of the soul or the void and learning to work with it. At some point, I hope to come back out of the dark.

 

[Black Rose]

secure
anxious
avoidant
fearful

If the OP is about equality responsibility I think @scorpiomover is right. It means they are attacking a certain type of person for saying women should not take responsibility as a strawman but in such a way as to look like you are being objective and that this is not about people attacking them personally and blaming them personally but for some kind of problem women have. And that means the OP is angry that women are not taking the responsibility that the OP believes they should from all the attacks they receive from the persons they are exposed to on social/regular media.

"Why should I (The OP) be responsible for other people's problems?"

Then it moves on to: "I am inundated with social/regular media that women should not be responsible".

And two and two together we get the OP.

Why should men be responsible? Where are the woman's responsibilities? Has everything to do with the fact that "pump and dump" should be normalized. Not that it matters much in that this is not a real issue. People do not normally do this in real life. It is not about the normalization of everyone doing it, it is about getting people to leave the OP alone. And if taking responsibility is normalized then people will "Leave the OP alone". So an argument needs to be made with examples of where women are not taking responsibility that was poorly chosen. To get others to agree and then once an example can be made then better arguments against people the OP encounters who make such and such claims he can then tell them they are not taking responsibility and that he does not need to deal with their fake leftist problems.

A big issue where people blame others and the OP has to deal with that. This makes it personal perhaps because they we unjustly made to take responsibility or someone did not take responsibility and it affected the OP. I said before that my mother does not solve her problems in such a way as to fix them. That is why I yelled at her and broke my phone her phone and my tv because she ignored me. I told her my brother was dangerous and she would not listen. I told her he would kill her if she did nothing and she ignored me. Then I went to the hospital.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Ten percent of people just want to fuck with no conseque.

Unabridged biology. However, there do not have to be consequences like babies, STDs, or surprises and twists and turns.
For example, if you are secure enough that you know you can self rely and bounce back, and you were prepared and protected against things because you required a certificate of health before hand, and you required an all or nothing stipulation and open communication, then, you have bridged that responsably.

Probably most sex neither male nor female is paying attention to those responsabilities in the heat of the moment.

The sexual drive of the body doesn't have morals, it wants what it wants when it wants it. So, those Jonathan Aslay videos are smart to watch.

You have to see detailed examples before you can judge a situation. Perceptions are so variable and can be wrong. Try not to judge because intent is hard to know also.