Off-Topic Let's talk about second-wave radical feminism - Dynastia's Daycare for the emotionally troubled.

[TerribleIdeas™]

We keep the dress code casual, no suits allowed.

Wouldn't hurt to hire Spergosaurus Twink as the whorehouse greeter/fluffer, would it? Or would that just entice Carl?

 

[Cryin RN]

I don't believe it's an exact analog, nor will it ever be, because of the uncanny valley. It's the same thing a lot of people here have noted about the few MtF trannies that pass - there's just something.... off, about them. But if it keeps some incel from going Elliot Roger, then I'm all for these dolls being available, separate from the "is there an exploitation risk" question.

Right. I think it's not an analog at all. The customers for sex dolls are not the same customers who go to prostitutes. They probably don't overlap much. I suspect sex doll brothels have trouble making money. (You can't lose your virginity to a sex doll. You can't tell a questionable story about a sex doll enjoying it so much it gave you the money back. You can't pick up a sex doll in a limo and take it on a classy date to Olive Garden. Etc.)

 

[Horus]

Wouldn't hurt to hire Spergosaurus Twink as the whorehouse greeter/fluffer, would it? Or would that just entice Carl?

Well, we live in a society, so it depends upon the Spergosaurus Twink.
Anyways, we probably better steer it back towards the topic at hand.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

Right. I think it's not an analog at all. The customers for sex dolls are not the same customers who go to prostitutes. They probably don't overlap much. I suspect sex doll brothels have trouble making money. (You can't lose your virginity to a sex doll. You can't tell a questionable story about a sex doll enjoying it so much it gave you the money back. You can't pick up a sex doll in a limo and take it on a classy date to Olive Garden. Etc.)

I still think there's going to be some call for these, though I doubt it's as much as would be seen with regular prostitutes. That said, if there was sort of demand (or more) for these as a service, as opposed to women, do you see it being a concern, assuming it follows the pattern of comics, roleplaying and video games, where there's no shown escalation from consumption to malignant behaviour?

 

[AbraCadaver]

No, objectively C-D cups are the best. If you like small tits then you're;
A. A closeted homo
B. A closeted nonce

Fight me

C. A woman tired of back pain and stretched skin.

 

[StrawberryDouche]

And frankly, if you're mad that I keep pointing out that "her body, her choice" isn't something you get to pick and choose the applicability of, while claiming to be in favour of women's empowerment (regardless of the label you apply to the support of empowerment). then you're going to be doomed to stay mad. Give me a reason why it's reasonable to support sexual and reproductive agency for some things, but not the rest, and do so by demonstrating how the sexual and reproductive agency associated with prostitution and surrogacy causes greater harms than the prohibition of either.

Because you have the absolute inability to differentiate between A and B, along with the absolute insistence that A and B are exactly the same thing. A horse has four legs, and a pig has four legs, therefore a pig is a horse!

And that if it weren't for the inherent flaws and faults of feminism you weak minded fools could clearly see that A is B rather than completely different variables! Idiots! I mean, J Fucking C already.

I don't think anyone asserted that it causes greater harm. What people have said is that harm is an irremovable factor and outcome for the women involved. Can you reduce it? To a degree, but the fact remains that profound harm is occurring to every single women who finds themselves in these circumstances.

Do you think little girls dream of doing ass to mouth with strangers for a tenner when they grow up? You seem to be forcefully putting forth the idea that legalization or regulation somehow reduces the exploitative or coercive harm that occurs to that former child and whatever horror brought them to that state of being. Yeah, let's enact policies that can reduce harm to whatever degree, but let's not pretend like the women who engage in it are emotionally healthy human beings in complete control of their bodily agency.

You've been blustering about and banging on about surrogacy as if you don't have a stake in the matter, and this is all pure reason on your behalf, because A is B, goddamn it, and if you want to rent a human being, you'll absolve yourself of any guilt of the coercive factor by demanding they in reality have pure agency, because passing on your genetic material is far more important.

That's some Olympic level gymnastics right there.

 

[Cryin RN]

I still think there's going to be some call for these, though I doubt it's as much as would be seen with regular prostitutes. That said, if there was sort of demand (or more) for these as a service, as opposed to women, do you see it being a concern, assuming it follows the pattern of comics, roleplaying and video games, where there's no shown escalation from consumption to malignant behaviour?

Would it be a concern? No! It'd be great! The goal is to reduce the total number of prostitutes, because it's a terrible job that nobody should have to do. It's like mining coal except with your vagina. If sex dolls actually replaced hookers 1:1, woohoo- let's have a squeegee station on every corner. But unlike miners, blowing a middle manager and then listening to 50 minutes of crying about how his wife doesn't understand him is not a job machines do better.

 

[Horus]

I still think there's going to be some call for these, though I doubt it's as much as would be seen with regular prostitutes. That said, if there was sort of demand (or more) for these as a service, as opposed to women, do you see it being a concern, assuming it follows the pattern of comics, roleplaying and video games, where there's no shown escalation from consumption to malignant behaviour?

Just tossing out ideas, but it depends upon the realism. As these things become more realistic, I can see their use becoming common place. As it stands, they are just Fleshlights that cost more, get shared by multiple patrons, and do not offer the discretion and privacy that traditional masturbation toys provide.
Once they get close to the real thing, then they could have all kinds of practical uses from pure recreation, to sexual therapy. I believe they could cut down on the rates of prostitution.

 

[Okkervils]

@TerribleIdeas™ is threadbanned for seven days, it's getting old. If this continues when or if he returns, please alert me. Back to your regularly scheduled autism, guys.

 

[SourDiesel]

Just tossing out ideas, but it depends upon the realism. As these things become more realistic, I can see their use becoming common place. As it stands, they are just Fleshlights that cost more, get shared by multiple patrons, and do not offer the discretion and privacy that traditional masturbation toys provide.
Once they get close to the real thing, then they could have all kinds of practical uses from pure recreation, to sexual therapy. I believe they could cut down on the rates of prostitution.

Has anyone ever read Chobits?

Anyhow, a sex doll brothel already exists interestingly enough. There is also a sex doll rental company. Both are in Toronto. Here are two articles from two different perspectives.

The first, an opinion piece from the very left leaning Now Toronto. Of note, the owner admits she expects men to enact their violent fantasies on the dolls as a sort of harm reduction thing.

Why Toronto’s sex doll brothel is bad for women

At Aura Dolls, men will be able to act out their dark, violent fantasies on realistic sex dolls

nowtoronto.com

The second, from the right leaning Toronto Sun, talking about 'Kinky S Dolls'. This company differentiates itself from the first by claiming "there is no violence or rape allowed" in contrast to the first.

‘NICE SKIN’: What it’s like inside a sex doll rental business

In a nondescript industrial building in North York, Tiffany is being set up on a dimly-lit private bed.Her owner — a man in his 30s — contorts her 54-kilogram torso, positions her long …

www.google.com

I mean, when it happens in real life, sex dolls as a replacement for real life prostitutes really tells you a lot about what prostitutes sometimes have to deal with. Is it helpful to have sex dolls instead for men who want to enact violence on women for sexual pleasure? In the absence of any real method of stopping men from having these fantasies or trying to act them out on real women, maybe. But there's also the argument that this service basically implies that wanting to rape someone is fine as long as you don't actually do it. Personally, I hate NOMAPS just as much as MAPS so it's hard for me to feel empathy for a dude that spends all day dreaming of rape just because he hasn't raped anyone yet.

 

[AnOminous]

Anyhow, a sex doll brothel already exists interestingly enough.

Imagine literally being cucked by a sex doll.

 

[FI 665]

Has anyone ever read Chobits?

I have not, but after reading these articles, I don't think I'll have any desire to.

The photos and descriptions of how they "use" the dolls are absolutely terrifying.

After use, each doll is brought into a “sterilizing station,” where a worker uses anti-bacterial soap and boiling water to clean the product. Synthetic wigs are changed once a week.

The basic AI doll — which will be available to renters for $150 an hour — can moan

lmfao, gotta make sure the john's ego stays intact.

 

[tuscangarder]

Antibacterial soap and boiling water isn't good enough.

 

[SourDiesel]

I have not, but after reading these articles, I don't think I'll have any desire to.

The photos and descriptions of how they "use" the dolls are absolutely terrifying.


lmfao, gotta make sure the john's ego stays intact.

Chobits is actually really interesting. It's about a future where androids are very realistic and everyone has one as they double as personal computers. It's about the resulting effects on society and relationships. It's not really about sex dolls per se.

What I found interesting when I went looking for articles about the brothel in Toronto though was that although the language and focus was slightly different, across the board, regardless of political affiliation, the argument against the brothels was the promotion of violence. The brothel was closed eventually due to violations of zoning laws that restrict adult entertainment to certain areas of the city, but they are back in business at an undisclosed location you have to text for the address so it's way shadier now fwiw.

 

[FI 665]

Chobits is actually really interesting. It's about a future where androids are very realistic and everyone has one as they double as personal computers. It's about the resulting effects on society and relationships. It's not really about sex dolls per se.

Oh, that does sound pretty cool, then. I'll give it a look, thank you!

What I found interesting when I went looking for articles about the brothel in Toronto though was that although the language and focus was slightly different, across the board, regardless of political affiliation, the argument against the brothels was the promotion of violence. The brothel was closed eventually due to violations of zoning laws that restrict adult entertainment to certain areas of the city, but they are back in business at an undisclosed location you have to text for the address so it's way shadier now fwiw.

The language and focus being different was super interesting to me as well, especially since the first article brought up that the incel Toronto van attack happened not too long before the 'Aura Doll' brothel opened, and added its tagline: "an exciting new way to achieve your needs without the many restrictions and limitations that a real partner may come with.”

Like holy shit; reading between the lines here, you get a feel for what they meant by 'restrictions and limitations'. "Well, it can't tell you NO, so go ahead and do whatever illegal or deviant thing you want, including weeping into its plastic asshole about how roasties won't talk to you."

 

[Ashenthorn]

Surrogacy is legal in a lot of places if no money is exchanged. Altruistic surrogacy is fine. It's just that it isn't good enough for most of the prospective surrogacy "buyers" because there is way more demand than there is women willing to do it for free. That's why they want to be able offer money. The argument that feminists are trying to stop women from choosing to be a surrogate are dumb for that reason. No one's stopping women, they just don't want to do it without some form of financial coercion. Rich people want to be able to buy whatever they want. Unfortunately some things are less available for sale than other things.

I'm not sure I understand...
"No one's stopping women, they just don't want to do it without some form of financial coercion."
If we're talking about the surrogates, shouldn't this be:
"No one's stopping women, they just don't want to do it without some form of financial coercion compensation."

If there are some women that WANT to surrogate for altruistic reasons without coercion (which you say is fine), then why prevent those same women from making a buck? And then go on to blame the rich for introducing the "coercion"?
It seems to me, that the women are the supply side of "supply & demand" in this equation. Which presumably should speak to autonomy and agency. If a woman wants to provide surrogacy services, she certainly should be able to add any stipulations she wants to a contract including "I can change my mind. Don't like it? Fuck off and go somewhere else."

Oh sure, I don't agree with all of it, but it's the easiest way to respond to someone: "here's some differences" in broad strokes without putting in walls of text myself, especially because it seemed @Ashenthorn wasn't asking in good faith.

I didn't ask for an explanation of the differences between radfems and conservatives. lol.
I asked (in good faith) why the specific primary source that has been cited for the abolishment of surrogacy in this thread and quoted several times for the evils of surrogacy (specifically re: contracts) is given so much weight when it comes from an arguably conservative christian web site. That's all.. curiosity, not "gotcha".

I'm guessing from your informative infographic that it's just part of the "tiny overlap", or it just falls under the "Oppose porn and prostitution" umbrella. i.e, same idea but for different reasons?

Are there better sources for the radfem position?
For example, in another anti-surrogacy link posted, the author says:

2 types of feminist Change liberal feminists minds ?
When so called liberal feminists make the point that my number of cases where not many, that kind of « feminism » irritates me . But then I have evolved since your first conference on surrogacy **s, discovering a feminist perspective against surrogacy. It kind of opened my mind. I knew it was a human rights violation but i did not look at it with feminist perspective. Now I do.

Is she talking about 3W feminists here? Which feminists need to change their minds?

# @TerribleIdeas™ didNothingWrong

 

[SourDiesel]

I'm not sure I understand...
"No one's stopping women, they just don't want to do it without some form of financial coercion."
If we're talking about the surrogates, shouldn't this be:
"No one's stopping women, they just don't want to do it without some form of financial coercion compensation."

If there are some women that WANT to surrogate for altruistic reasons without coercion (which you say is fine), then why prevent those same women from making a buck? And then go on to blame the rich for introducing the "coercion"?
It seems to me, that the women are the supply side of "supply & demand" in this equation. Which presumably should speak to autonomy and agency. If a woman wants to provide surrogacy services, she certainly should be able to add any stipulations she wants to a contract including "I can change my mind. Don't like it? Fuck off and go somewhere else."



I didn't ask for an explanation of the differences between radfems and conservatives. lol.
I asked (in good faith) why the specific primary source that has been cited for the abolishment of surrogacy in this thread and quoted several times for the evils of surrogacy (specifically re: contracts) is given so much weight when it comes from an arguably conservative christian web site. That's all.. curiosity, not "gotcha".

I'm guessing from your informative infographic that it's just part of the "tiny overlap", or it just falls under the "Oppose porn and prostitution" umbrella. i.e, same idea but for different reasons?

Are there better sources for the radfem position?
For example, in another anti-surrogacy link posted, the author says:



Is she talking about 3W feminists here? Which feminists need to change their minds?

# @TerribleIdeas™ didNothingWrong

No because the compensation is the coercion. Be honest, if a business opened tomorrow for surrogacy and promised a real paycheck for production of babies, how many women do you think would sign up and what would the demographic be? I think you'll find that there would not be nearly enough women for the demand and only the most desperate women would sign up. And that's assuming there weren't these insane contracts attached. No one who isn't very desperate for money would sign up for that.

Money is a coercive factor. It becomes more coercive the less of it you have. I really don't see how you guys don't understand that. Are you telling me you would choose to go to work at your normal job if they weren't paying you? If not for a need of money, you would make very different choices with your time I'm sure. You only "choose" to go to work because you have to to survive. Money has coerced you into your job. When it comes to sex work, this is obvious. Do you think the prostitutes who serviced Russel Greer would've done so if they weren't paid? Sex is free when chosen freely.

If I start shooting a gun at your feet, you can "choose" to dance but if you don't, your feet get shot off. It's your choice.

 

[Ashenthorn]

No because the compensation is the coercion. Be honest, if a business opened tomorrow for surrogacy and promised a real paycheck for production of babies, how many women do you think would sign up and what would the demographic be? I think you'll find that there would not be nearly enough women for the demand and only the most desperate women would sign up. And that's assuming there weren't these insane contracts attached. No one who isn't very desperate for money would sign up for that.

This ignores my question of a woman who wants to do this for her own altruistic reasons but still wouldn't mind getting compensated.

In your example, how long would your described surrogacy business last if they only hired desperate crackwhores to save some money and take advantage of their surrogates/employees? Granted, on a black market, such businesses might (and probably do) thrive. Same could be said for drugs and porn for that matter. You can deal on a street corner or open a marijuana shop. You can hook on a corner, or work in a legal brothel. You can go to Ca and get into shooting porn in a sleazy studio, or be a camwhore in your living room. In these examples, black markets drive the former and not the latter, and prohibition of all (which creates the black markets) is demonstrably worse for anyone doing any of these things as far as working conditions and agency.

"I think you'll find that there would not be nearly enough women for the demand and only the most desperate women would sign up."
Again, having too much demand, means that the supplier gets to set the terms, NOT the demander.

If an entrepreneurial woman wanted to set up a surrogacy agency and only wanted to provide the surrogates with the best contracts, she and the (extensively screened) surrogates would benefit. Her hired law firm writing up the contracts would also benefit. Her (extensively screened) clients would also benefit. Not to mention the possibility of the creation of smart Surrogacy Advocacy businesses. If there are women who would (and currently DO) surrogate for altruistic reasons, there WOULD be "non-desperate" women who would sign up.

^^^ One of these scenarios displays a very pessimistic/negative view of humanity, the other, a more optimistic/positive one. I'd suppose the most realistic view would fall somewhere in between. Perhaps the positive view is a little idealistic, but I think it at least bears consideration when talking about offering opportunity while maintaining autonomy and agency consistently.

Are you telling me you would choose to go to work at your normal job if they weren't paying you?

Throughout my life, I've only worked jobs that I chose to work. If I didn't like the work, I did something else. Weird, I know.

 

[SourDiesel]

This ignores my question of a woman who wants to do this for her own altruistic reasons but still wouldn't mind getting compensated.

In your example, how long would your described surrogacy business last if they only hired desperate crackwhores to save some money and take advantage of their surrogates/employees? Granted, on a black market, such businesses might (and probably do) thrive. Same could be said for drugs and porn for that matter. You can deal on a street corner or open a marijuana shop. You can hook on a corner, or work in a legal brothel. You can go to Ca and get into shooting porn in a sleazy studio, or be a camwhore in your living room. In these examples, black markets drive the former and not the latter, and prohibition of all (which creates the black markets) is demonstrably worse for anyone doing any of these things as far as working conditions and agency.

"I think you'll find that there would not be nearly enough women for the demand and only the most desperate women would sign up."
Again, having too much demand, means that the supplier gets to set the terms, NOT the demander.

If an entrepreneurial woman wanted to set up a surrogacy agency and only wanted to provide the surrogates with the best contracts, she and the (extensively screened) surrogates would benefit. Her hired law firm writing up the contracts would also benefit. Her (extensively screened) clients would also benefit. Not to mention the possibility of the creation of smart Surrogacy Advocacy businesses. If there are women who would (and currently DO) surrogate for altruistic reasons, there WOULD be "non-desperate" women who would sign up.

^^^ One of these scenarios displays a very pessimistic/negative view of humanity, the other, a more optimistic/positive one. I'd suppose the most realistic view would fall somewhere in between. Perhaps the positive view is a little idealistic, but I think it at least bears consideration when talking about offering opportunity while maintaining autonomy and agency consistently.


Throughout my life, I've only worked jobs that I chose to work. If I didn't like the work, I did something else. Weird, I know.

Ok we aren't getting anywhere because you fundamentally believe money doesn't coerce people and I do. So I'm not going to continue to debate this specific topic after this.

***
Edit: tbh I don't think you even fundamentally believe the above. I think you guys that keep arguing this simply want something to grasp onto to excuse your desire to be able to continue buying the bodies of women because what you really believe is that women cannot be abused in these situations. Which is like, really a tough stance to take when all evidence points to the contrary. Which is why I don't want to argue this point anymore. You have preconceived hardline beliefs.
***

Sure, you like your job but you didn't answer the question: if they weren't paying you AT ALL would you still choose to do it 8 hours a day, five days a week? I think we both know the answer is no. I can't debate this with people who are not honest about the situation. Dude. Some things like surrogacy or prostitution are so terrible to do that no one fucking chooses freely to do them.
Who the hell wouldn't take free money for doing something they were gonna do anyway like your example of the altruistic surrogate who just "wouldn't mind some money"? Do you seriously think that if someone who needed a surrogate and found a woman willing lto do it for free would choose to just give her a bunch of money when they didn't have to? So you routinely pay people for free shit? Most people don't pay for anything they don't have to because money is a finite resource. You're trying to "sweeten the deal" for the woman by offering money to get her to do something she otherwise wouldn't - aka coercion.

You keep changing the rules to fit into your assumed reality when that reality doesn't exist and we both know that. No one is out here going to work without being coerced by a paycheck and no one is out here spending those hard earned paychecks on shit they could get for free. If women were out here offering surrogacy for free in numbers, a paid industry wouldn't exist because people would be getting this shit for free. Russel Greer wouldn't go to brothels if he could get sex for free. He has to coerce women into doing it by venmoing a dollar. Do you understand?

 

[Cryin RN]

For any interested parties, check out these articles on surrogacy in Ukraine, in Ukraine again, and again in Ukraine. Pay attention to the way these surrogate mothers talk about their choice to offer surrogacy. "I didn't have another choice." 'I can't make this money any other way." Do they sound like organ donors or do they sound like sex workers? They are not happy, generous ladies who just love being pregnant (they exist, but even they encounter absolutely fucked up behaviour from donors). They are raising their own children, often solo, and cannot get $30,000 any other way. This is why coercion matters in markets like these and it's exactly why it is illegal to pay for organ donation.

"A surrogate has no say in an abortion. She has no rights," she says.

The 26-year-old doesn’t want people to know who she is or where she is from. But she does want them to know that the father of her two children is no longer in the picture. Angela had to give up her third baby for adoption two years ago. She believes this time it will be easier to give up the baby because it won’t be hers.

Angela works as a cook and says it would take a long time to buy a home on her salary: “I grew up without a home. It’s important for me to have an apartment of my own. This is the only way I can do that.”

Sitting next to Anna is Angela, the 32-year-old hairdresser from California who has contracted Anna to be her surrogate. “Four years ago after giving birth I had terrible bleeding. They removed my uterus and I can’t get pregnant anymore,” she says. “I can afford to do this here but not in California (where it is also legal, but costs €120,000.)”

In Ukraine, future parents are shown catalogues with photos of women and their general information from which they can pick a surrogate or an egg donor. They can choose the sex of the baby – which is illegal in Spain – and do not need to pass any controls.

"At first my husband was against it, but eventually he was convinced by the money."

Started in 2004, <a surrogacy firm in Ukraine> boasts 200 staff with five fulltime doctors, and caters to languages including Chinese, Italian, German and Spanish. Its annual turnover is about 30 million euros.

Let's look at the purchasers of surrogates:

Bec Kalpakoff says that she has never struggled with the decision to use a Ukrainian surrogate. "Back home the girls at work and even my 90-year-old gran said go for it. They were more concerned about the war in eastern Ukraine, not the ethics of it," she says. "It's the current Australian laws and local IVF costs that force couples to go oversees for surrogates, it's our own system."

Oh hey Bec you fucking mong do you think the war might have something to do with women being desperate enough to sell a baby for money? Multiple women interviewed bring up IVF being "expensive" as a reason to rent someone else's uterus.