Just have to spread the amazing news

An Australian woman was working in the United Arab Emirates. She was raped. She filed a rape complaint. To her surprise, she was convicted of adultery and sentenced to jail.

I just can't get that grin off my face.

This is where I first saw it, so I feel it's fair to give it credit, but it's a rather incoherent rant.

This article is much better, explaining clearly what happened.

She looks really cute, too.

Sex is not only physical for men either

It is commonly believed that women's sexual pleasure consists of a physical component and a psychological component, whereas men's sexual pleasure consists only of the physical component. After all, it is well known that an average woman won't enjoy being fucked by just any man – she needs the feeling of emotional closeness to the partner in order to enjoy sex. An average man, on the other hand, would be more than happy to fuck any woman who isn't too ugly – he doesn't need to spend time with her, or to even know her name, and it's certainly no obstacle that it was less than a minute ago that he saw her for the first time.

However, that belief is shattered by this obvious paradox – why is sex more enjoyable than masturbation? The orgasm is the same – in fact, many a masturbation-orgasm can be more intense than many a fuck-orgasm. But still we desire sex. Why? Women often ask that question – if men can easily have an orgasm any time they want to, why they're still so obsessed with sticking it into a vagina? What's the difference?

The first time a girlfriend asked me that, I was shocked – how can she even say such a thing? But I was unable to explain to her what was the essential difference between jerking off and fucking. I just knew that the latter was a million times more desirable. But why? It had nothing to do with some stupid love because I knew I would gladly fuck every second woman I saw on the street. But there obviously was something I couldn't put my finger on.

It left me puzzled for years, until I finally came up with a hypothesis. I believe that men's sexual pleasure also contains a psychological component. The reason why it's easy to overlook is because it's not the same as women's. The psychological component of men's sexual pleasure is not emotional closeness. It's the feeling of conquest. Just like a woman (usually) needs to feel emotionally close to the man in order to truly enjoy the mechanics of genital movement, a man (usually) needs to feel that he has conquered the woman in order to truly enjoy the mechanics of genital movement.

That hypothesis would explain several paradoxes of human sexuality – starting with the question what is missing in the admittedly strong pleasure you get from masturbating. Or the paradox why men madly desire sex but still hate it when the woman takes too much initiative. It may be because a woman who asks to be fucked can't be conquered. That is especially true in the case of prostitution, which can be a very important reason why many men refuse to still their sex hunger with a prostitute even though it's available in their location.

Also my hypothesis makes it perfectly understandable (although there are other explanations which are just as good) why most, if not all, men lose the desire for their wives or girlfriends sooner or later. After all, if you have fucked a woman hundreds of times and made her do pretty much anything imaginable, there is obviously nothing left to conquer.

There are strong reasons to assume that there are two very different kinds of conquest, and thus two types of conquest desires. I call the types "body conqueror" and "soul conqueror" (and of course a man can well be a mixture of the two).

In brief:
1) the body conqueror desires to make a woman do what he wants;
2) the soul conqueror desires to make a woman want to do what he wants.

For the body conqueror type, to conquer a woman means to make her submit to fucking, no matter by which means. He wouldn't mind raping, and probably the most important thing that prevents him from doing that is that he would risk being put to prison – or worse in some cultures. Even when he's having sex with a consenting partner, he might enhance his enjoyment by imagining that he's raping her (or some other woman, for that matter). He would enjoy pressing a partner, who is consenting in principle, into doing things which she is reluctant to do and doesn't actually enjoy – such as anal sex. "I enjoyed it because she didn't want it," sums nicely up the attitude of a body conqueror.

The soul conqueror type is different. For him, conquest means making the woman desire him. He abhors rape. Even if he's suffering from the lack of sex so desperately that he has to rely on rape to get laid, he tries to make it appear as if the victim actually wanted it, or at least began to enjoy it during the rape. Research seems to indicate that actually three rapists out of four (74% according to one statistic I read) are like that. They would say things like "Come on, you slut, admit it that you actually like it," while fucking the victim. Some rapists are reportedly so deeply engulfed in their own delusions that they actually suggest to the victim after the rape that perhaps she would like to meet him again another time. The body conqueror would do nothing of the kind.

Both conquest types dislike prostitution, but for different reasons. The body conqueror can't truly enjoy sex with a prostitute because it's clear that the prostitute wants it – she doesn't even need to be convinced, let alone forced. (Also, and perhaps more importantly, prostitutes usually set very clear boundaries as to what they will do and what they won't, so there is very little room for pushing their limits.) The soul conqueror, on the other hand, can't truly enjoy sex with a prostitute because it's clear that the prostitute doesn't desire him, she's only doing it because of his money.

As in the case of rape, the soul conqueror type likes to pretend that the prostitute is actually a "decent" woman who likes and desires him. That is probably the reason why many prostitutes fake pleasure, like moan while you're fucking them. I don't think they would do it unless a great majority of customers wanted them to. A body conqueror type would find that disgusting. In fact, I know of cases where a man quickly lost his erection while he was fucking a hooker and she began to moan in obviously faked pleasure.

Another situation that illustrates the difference between the two types of conquest is BDSM (I mean the dominant role; the submissive role is beyond the topic of this article). Both types of men can enjoy it, but their expectations are profoundly different.

For the soul conqueror, it is essential that the "slave" consents to everything. There was this sadomasochist couple where the guy would spank the girl and made her do all kinds of humiliating things not only in private, but he also took her to S/M parties. She found it all profoundly disgusting, but she endured it because she loved him. The moment when she snapped was when he, in blissful ignorance of her feelings, told her that he wanted to get a second slave like her. Then she threw it all in his face, letting him know how she hated all his perversions. The point of the story is this: he was devastated. He would have never done the things he had done to her, had he suspected that she was only pretending to like it. The remorse seemed to be killing him. Obviously a soul conqueror type.

Quite differently in another true story about which I read in a submissive women's forum. One woman was describing her relationship which was very different from most cases, where the "slave" has a so-called safe word – a sort of a password previously agreed between the partners which means that she really can't take it anymore and he has to stop the whipping or whatever he's doing and free her from her bonds or whatever. That woman explained that she had nothing like a safe word. She said something to the effect of "You had a choice when you decided to give yourself away. After that, you have no way of telling him that you can't take it any longer. I hear myself screaming it all the time." Clearly her partner was a body conqueror type who would feel that agreeing to the use of a safe word would be equivalent to taking orders from a slave.

I absolutely don't mean to say that the desire to conquest is present only in the case of abnormal sex. I merely brought examples where the difference between the two conqueror types is most obvious. In the overwhelming majority of sexual relations, the difference would be subtle. The two types of men would act very similarly. Some would tend to get less excited when the woman seems too willing, some would tend to get less excited when the woman seems too unwilling, but there are so many other factors involved that for the observer it might be difficult to tell if one or another man is a body conqueror or a soul conqueror or something between them.

All in all, the feeling of conquest as the psychological component of men's sexual pleasure is the theory that explains men's sexuality better than any other I know of (at this point of time).

Reasons why people hate prostitution

What this is all about

It’s hard to not notice the widespread despise of prostitution. Even men who go to brothels tend to be ashamed of it, not to mention the prostitutes themselves. In our everyday language, it is hard to overlook the self-evident feeling of moral superiority that accompanies the use of the word "slut" or saying that one or another woman is of easy virtue.

Ever since I learned, at some early age, what the words "prostitute" and "prostitution" meant, I've been trying to find out what’s supposed to be so awful and despicable about prostitution. I still can't fully understand it, but I believe I have found some likely psychological reasons to it. I am offering them for discussion, hoping that someone will tell me something that will help me to understand things better.

Method

Let's examine what it is that people dislike about prostitution, and why they dislike it.

This discussion shall be limited to female prostitution for men, since that's the overwhelming majority of the existent prostitution, as well as the symbol of prostitution for the general public. Thus, when I speak of "prostitution" from now on, I mean only women getting paid for having sex with men, and when I speak of "sex", I mean heterosexual sex.

It's reasonable to discuss the opinions of men and women separately, not only because of their profound biological differences, but also because their very different roles in prostitution – women can only be prostitutes and men can only be their customers.

As far as I understand, there are essentially five things people dislike about prostitution:

1) women’s willingness to have a lot of sex;

2) exchange of sex for money;

3) availability of sex partners for men;

4) sexual freedom (freedom to choose whom to have sex with);

5) assumed involuntariness of prostitution.

Of course, not all reason apply to all people. People are different and different people detest prostitution for different reasons.

It should also be clear that it's extremely rare that people actually admit to those reasons (apart from the 5th). They hide their real motives behind meaningless moralist slogans, like how the sale and purchase of "love" is "wrong". That is humanly understandable, but, of course, not to be taken seriously.  (What love? I'm talking about sex. What has love got to do with anything? And there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong". There are things you like and things you don't like.)

Please note that a number of ideas are covered rather briefly in this article. That is not because I'm being superficial, it's because I didn't want to make this article too long. (It's pretty long as it is.) I can explain all those points in detail, and in fact I have several additional articles in work, and I'm looking forward to publishing them in the near future.

Now let us examine the individual reasons for the people's aversion to prostitution, one by one.

1. Why people don’t like women’s willingness to have a lot of sex?

Men

A man's disliking of women who are willing to have a lot of sex can have some of the following reasons:

1. Before the invention of DNA tests, a man could never know for certain who was the father born to his woman. Therefore, men have evolutionally developed a number of psychological defence mechanisms against the danger of spending a huge portion of their resources on raising another man's child. Among those is a strong desire that the woman be a virgin and never desiring to have sex with more than one man during her life.

2. He fears that he is inferior to other men. He believes that other men's sexual skills are superior to his own. So he fears that his sexual skills aren't enough to satisfy the woman's expectations. Therefore he prefers his partner to have as little sexual experience as possible.

That fear results mainly from our destructive education and socialisation system of boys, as well as distorted representations of human sexuality in "adult" magazines.

3. He believes that women who enjoy sex are abnormal or bad. That belief results partly from failing to understand the complexity of sexuality, partly from religious and ideological propaganda.

4. Men have a huge need for sex and women can easily satisfy it, but they don't have to. The power to refuse sex gives women enormous influence on men. Therefore, a man might dislike women who aren't ashamed of their sexuality, as such women would have no scruples about actually using that power for their benefit, and he feels he's helpless against it.

5. Sex with a woman who likes to have a lot of sex might leave unsatisfied the man's natural desire for conquest.

Women

Many women have been taught from the childhood on that sex is bad (at least with a man who is not one's husband). That's why they detest "sluts".

Of course, such puritanical upbringing has been decreasing rapidly in the last decades, so this reason is increasingly less important.

2. Why people don’t like the exchange of sex for money?

Men

Men don’t like the exchange of sex for money mostly because they consider the prostitutes' fees too high. Rationalising away the hidden costs of seduction, they fail to realise that "decent" women usually cost far more – except when you'll gain them as long-time partners, and even that is disputable.

Women

Women have two kinds of feelings about buyable sex. An aging wife might feel envy – she has to spread her legs for her (similarly aging, and inceasingly less sexy) husband for free while some other women seem to be making considerable money with their bodies. For younger and more competitive women, in turn, the price prostitutes are asking for sex is far too low, but that has more to do with reason number 3.

In connection with the reason number 1, it should be noted that those women who consider sex dirty as such, are, of course, especially appalled by the sale and purchase of sex, as it increases the occurrence of the "sin" of sex considerably.

3. Why people don’t like the availability of sex partners for men?

Men

At first, it might seem illogical that a man would be opposed to the availability of sex partners for men. But it’s psychologically explainable with following reasons:

1. The misguided belief that non-prostitutes are free might easily produce another belief – that a "real" man doesn't have to pay for sex. Imagine a man who does everything he can to please women and to get laid for "free" – usually with meagre success. He likes to think that the brothel customers are pathetic men who are unable to seduce women (as if he was). It's understandable that he gets mad when such supposedly inferior men can get sexual satisfaction and he – a "nice guy who treats women with respect" – can't. As he has to work so hard to get laid, it's quite understandable that he's envious of men who get laid cheaper, quicker and with far less stress. As he's too ashamed to go to a brothel (see reason number 1 above), he opposes prostitution out of simple envy: if I can’t get any, the others shouldn’t either.

2. Men naturally desire many different sex partners, but the number of men and women in the world is about equal. Also, many men desire women with no or little sexual experience (see reason number 1 above). Thus, there are clearly way too few women in the world to satisfy all men. Therefore, men have the instinctive urge to try to deprive other men of sex.

Women

For women, the obvious reason for disliking availability of sex partners for men is competition. The less competitive women just hate the thought of their partners having access to other (and possibly more attractive) women. The more competitive women, in turn, are displeased because the prostitutes dump the prices.

4. Why people don’t like sexual freedom?

For shortness's sake, I will use the term "sexual freedom" in the meaning of "freedom to choose one's sex partner".

Sexual freedom is related to the previous reason (availability of sex partners) but it's not the same. Availability of sex means that every person can get laid whenever he wants to. Sexual freedom means that every person is free to choose to have or not to have sex with any given person. Example: if every adult human being would be forced to be married and refusing sex to one's spouse would be forbidden, sex would be available but there would be no sexual freedom. Contrarily, if there were no (hetero)sexual taboos whatsoever, but the whole population of Earth would be male, there would be (hetero)sexual freedom but no availability of (heterosexual) sex.

Apart from religious demands for monogamy, sexual freedom is generally unwanted because any unrestricted market promotes competition, which results in the more able getting more and the less able getting less. The more the market is restricted, the more it can be guaranteed that everyone will get at least something. So most people think that being chained to one partner for life is a lesser evil than having to constantly compete for sex partners.

5. Why do people assume that prostitution is involuntary?

It should be understandable that people who detest prostitution for one of the above reasons, find its existence hard to accept. Whenever a person is very strongly opposed to something, his brain tends to reject input that might justify it, and seek justifications for opposing it.

Among other things, when a person detests prostitution, it's easy for him to start believing that no woman would ever voluntarily do anything so abhorrent. It follows logically that if they do it anyway, they are being coerced.

The hypothesis of sexual slavery is the most effective weapon against prostitution. It is psychologically very difficult for a man to admit that he is terrified of women who have had many sex partners, or for a woman to express his displeasure at the prostitutes making sex so easily available for the men. When, however, they declare that they are fighting against sexual slavery, they appear noble and moral. By throwing big emotional words about supposed human trafficking and forced prostitution at people, they can avoid revealing their real motives (even to themselves).

Why does the society support and enhance the irrational anti-prostitution sentiments?

Rulers of virtually every nation cultivate the anti-prostitution sentiments with legislation, education and propaganda.

Some politicians really do oppose prostitution, for the reasons discussed above. It is quite understandable that they try to force their personal preferences upon others. Most people are inclined to do that, out of misguided belief that their opinion somehow represents what is "good" and "moral" and reflects the true "human nature", while people who have differing preferences are misguided and need to be made to see the truth.

Other politicians, however, fight prostitution because it serves their benefit. They can basically have two motives:

1) to increase their own chances of getting laid (by kissing up to women and by restricting other men's access to sex partners);

2) to increase their power (by making women more influential and by suppressing people’s sexuality).

So, this is it in a nutshell. Stand by for additional articles which will explain things in more detail.

Laps valib endale ise vanemad??

On olemas uhuufilosoofia, mille kohaselt inimene pärast suremist ja enne uuesti sündmist valib endale olukorra, kuhu uuesti sündida. Inimesed, kes sellesse usuvad, räägivad, et laps valib endale ise vanemad jms., niisuguse veendumusega, nagu nad oleksid seda ise pealt näinud. Tegelikult ei ole neil selle uskumuse kinnituseks vähimaidki tõendeid. Aga mingites tuhande või kahe tuhande aasta vanustes india raamatutes on nii kirjas, järelikult peab see olema õige.

Ma tõesti ei saa aru, kas nad tõesti ei ole üldse järele mõelnud, mida nad räägivad.

Kuuldavasti (ja ilmselt on see ka tõsi) on lapsi, keda nende vanemad üsna sageli üsna jõhkralt peksavad, vägistavad vms. Kujutlege ennast selle lapse olukorras. Ta ei ole mingit võimalust ennast kaitsta, sest vanemad on temast palju tugevamad. Tal ei ole võimalik ära minna, sest politsei tooks ta jalamaid vanemate juurde tagasi. Tal ei ole kelleltki kaitset otsida, sest täiskasvanutel on kalduvus lapse juttu mitte tõsiselt võtta, eriti kui vanemad suure suuga kuulutavad, kuidas nad armastavad oma last ja teevad tema heaks kõik. Pealegi ei pruugi laps veel osata ennast korralikult väljendada ja ta on võib-olla isegi liiga noor, et õieti arugi saada, mis toimub.

Öelda, et see laps on sellise saatuse ära teeninud eelmises elus tehtud halbade tegude eest, on jõle.

Öelda, et need kannatused on sellele lapsele vajalikud millegi õppimiseks ja mingile kõrgemale arengutasemele jõudmiseks, on eriti jõle.

Öelda, et see laps on endale sellise saatuse ise valinud, on üks kõige jõledamaid asju üldse, mida üks inimene teise inimese kohta öelda võib.

Selline hoolimatuse ja parastamise filosoofia on minu silmis veel jälgim kui kristlus või islam. Inimesed, kes seda filosoofiat levitavad, on lurjused.

What is cowardly and what isn't

I ran across this blog entry the other day. It's a rather nasty, feminist article about something that happened a year and a half ago in Singapore. It would appear that a man punished his wife and sons for displeasing him. He ordered them to run across the block many times, and then he ordered his wife to kowtow until her forehead was bruised.

This article is not so much about that incident. That Singaporean man's treatment of his family members seems indeed grossly out of proportion, but I haven't heard his side of the story, and I'm not really interested. What made me write this were some things a person quoted in the article (someone nicknamed BowWow) said.

One thing in particular struck me: "It's such a cowardly act, abusing someone weaker than him."

Many times in my life, I've heard people call things cowardly that clearly aren't. Like the president of the USA calling 9-11 a "cowardly attack". I was dumbstruck. The cunning and resourcefulness required to plan and execute an operation like that – I can't even began to imagine how many times I would have found myself trembling and choking with utter and complete panic in the process. However, I don't think I would be too afraid to push a button and send a rocket to destroy life and property thousands of miles away, knowing perfectly well that I'm absolutely safe from the enemy – he just hasn't got any technology to attack me. Well, apparently the latter is what some Americans consider brave. Me, I think that sacrificing your life for a cause you believe in takes more courage than any American politician is ever going to have. Just my opinion, of course.

Anyway, I couldn't help wondering how could Mr. BowWow say that it's cowardly to abuse someone weaker. How do you abuse someone who's stronger? Well, maybe by puncturing his car tyres or pissing in his tea. Does that take more courage than, say, hitting someone who is weaker than you? (Obviously, you can't abuse someone who is stronger than you by hitting him; he'd just hit you back with more strength or even catch your blow.) I'm not sure. It may, and it may not.

I began to think: what would be cowardly in my book? One thing that comes into mind it this: the parliament is voting on legislation that would give yet another privilege to women, and a male MP who actually doesn't like it, votes "yes" anyway, because he's afraid that if he voted "no", her wife would refuse sex that night, or because he hasn't got balls to tell to a journalist that he voted "no" because he disapproves of giving women yet another privilege.

Next, I thought that beating a woman seems to be less cowardly than letting a woman beat you.

If I tried to define a coward, it would be one who is excessively afraid. For example:

If you fail to tell a traffic cop to fuck off and mind his own business, it's not being cowardly, it's just being sensible. If your girlfriend throws plates and glasses against the wall in fury, and you fail to stop her doing that and to tell her something like "if you ever do it again, I'll throw you out," it is cowardice.

If you refuse to travel to Somalia because of the anarchy and rampant violence there, it's not cowardly. If you refuse to travel to Mexico City because you've read about the drug gangs' gunfights in Ensenada (in the same country but 2000 km away), it is cowardly.

I admit that it's also cowardly if a person never expresses his disagreement with his superiors, but instead takes it out on his subordinates. It is possible that that Singaporean man was that kind of person. Maybe he was frustrated with kissing his bosses' asses day after day and let his anger out by excessively punishing his wife and children. But it's also possible that he was just an unusually strict master. In any case, his behaviour as described in that article doesn't say much about him being brave or cowardly, and it's absurd to say that he was a coward BECAUSE he did what he did to his wife. It would much rather be justified to call him a coward if he had let his wife and children anger him and hadn't done anything about it. I mean, I would understand if you called him a "tyrant", but "coward"? Come on.

 

Now, of course, accusation of cowardice is one of the most popular playgrund arguments. It has certainly happened to you many times that another boy wanted you to do something, and you didn't want to do it, and he said: "Oh, youre AFRAID!" When you're 10 or 14, it's really very difficult to explain to your buddies that you're not afraid to smash that window, you just feel no desire whatsoever to do it. Girls use that weapon too, as they learn soon enough that "coward" is one of the worst insults imaginable for boys.

It apparently goes on in the adult life. People use extremely insulting labels against the people they dislike, simply because they hurt more. It's like some people who hated Bill Clinton's policies, called him a rapist, because that word hurts far more than "dishonest politician" or "leftist swine". Similarly, "you are a coward" is much more hurtful to the other guy, and much more protecting of one's own self-respect than "it makes me fuming with envy to know that there are men in the world for whom women would do something like that".

Now there's something Mr. BowWow said that seems to throw light on the background of his motives:

"And what's even more shocking to me is, why did the woman do it?"

And that, I think, is precisely the point. It is shocking to him that the woman obeyed the man's seemingly outrageous orders. Well, I find it surprising that Mr. BowWow can't think of a possible reason, but for his information, I think the woman did it because either:

a) she knew that if she refused, the man was likely to beat her up;

b) she simply is a good wife who obeys her husband;

c) her husband has other extremely attractive qualities (like very much money), due to which she very much wants to please him, even at the price of being humiliated in public.

So here's your "why".

What I think it all boils down to is that Mr. BowWow (as well as several authors of furious comments and shares) is just too reluctant to face the reality that another man has such a power over a woman. He believes that he will never be able to make women obey his orders like that. Chances are, instead, that he (believes that he) has to woo his girlfriend all day long in order to even get laid in the evening.

Envy, purest envy (even if unconscious), that's what it's all about – and masking his own cowardly attitude towards women by throwing the word "coward" into a more powerful man's face, through the Internet, from the safety of his room, to which, I presume, that man accused of cowardice has no access to.

So it turned out that while writing this, I found another, very typical example of cowardice: insulting another person over the Internet, knowing that you can never be required to back up your words with your fists. Which begs the question: am I doing the same thing? Strictly speaking, I am, but I like to think that I'm doing the right thing. That is for two reasons. Firstly, he started it, and I'm just giving it back to him, defending someone who I believe is being wrongly attacked. Secondly, if Mr. BowWow is willing to look that Singaporean man in the eye and tell him he's a coward and take the consequences, then I am willing to look him in the eye and tell him he's a feminist wimp and take the consequences. That should be fair enough, considering the physical limitations imposed by this much-less-than-perfect world we live in.

Introduction and test

I spent some time thinking about the concept of this blog, and finally gave up. I am not trying to make money with this, and I am not trying to build up a following, so I won't limit myself to any particular topic. It's going to be an eclectical blog.

Some posts may be in languages other than English, but whenever the topic is not too much country- or language-specific, I'll write in English.