Aziz Ansari Is Guilty of Not Being a Mind Reader

Agreed, men are notoriously bad mind-readers. Had she simply stated she enjoyed dinner but wasn't into fooling around, that would've been the end of it. But I also note, women are notoriously bad at assertiveness when it comes either to going after a man she wants or repelling a man she doesn't. A fair bit of the current nuttiness could be eliminated if ppl just plain stated what they wanted and then if they are denied, just shove off. "Fatal Attraction" is a story of what happens when a woman doesn't take no for an answer. Well, it's one scenario, anyway.

Of course at my age I've lived and learned. I simply put it to the lady: fuck or not? If she says no, I accept it and move on. And another thing: dating. Bad idea. Taking women out by and large is a huge waste of time and money, and in any case, most have a fit if you presume dutch treat so to avoid the whole mess I don't bother with such nonsense. Either you want to fuck or you don't. It's that simple. If average people followed swinger/sex party rules in re sex, #MeToo never would've even happened.

Oh yeah, why in my quote do I spell "Put" with a plus sign, as in "Pu+"? Simple: for some odd reason, "Put" was breaking Drupal if it had a 't'. Drupal's notorious for these funny glitches.

I thought you were writing "peeyou plus" regarding the whole thing.

This is more in response to Matt's comment above....

It would be good if everyone was straight forward with each other about what they want...but let's be clear, there is no place on earth where attractive heterosexual women are showing up and, without any type of financial benefit saying "yes" to the question "do you want to fuck or not?" (no matter how eloquently the man might ask it)

Male swingers have not conquered the natural laws of 'supply and demand' or the motivations and consequences involving sex.  Heterosexual male swingers do not get more sex or free sex, they get what every other man on earth gets, which is as much sex as they are willing to pay for.

Reminds of an old joke:

A guy's in a bar and watches another fellow who keeps walking up to women and getting slapped.

Curious, the guy walks over to the man and asks why he keeps getting slapped.

The man says, "Well, I walk up to women and ask if they want to have sex."

The guy replies, "Wow, you must get slapped a lot."

The man replies, "Yes, but I also get laid a lot."

:)

The whole idea of men paying women for sex is one of those issues that rarely gets discussed.

From my own research, societies in which rape is not a problem are also societies in which women don't ask men to pay for sex. Such societies are rare, but apparently they do exist, or did exist before they were "corrupted" by the West.

Sometimes, it seems to me that rape in the West consists of a man getting sex without paying enough for it. For example, a woman goes out with a man, gets drunk, and has sex with him--even though he didn't, say, buy her dinner. She wakes up the next day and is now sober and decides he took advantage of her--and, therefore, he's guilty of date rape. Bottom line is that he didn't pay for the sex, so he's the villain, even though the woman may not realize she expected to get paid. Another example is a guy copping a feel--he got sex without paying for it first. It may not do much real harm, but a man's gotta pay to play. On the other hand, if a woman cops a feel, well, no harm, no foul--women don't pay for sex, they get paid for sex.

The rest of the story is that even when a man pays for sex with, say, a couple of nice dinners out, he may not get any sex. The implication is that sex is a contract--men have to pay, women have to consent. But even though men pay, she may not consent, or she may withdraw her consent. But if sex is a contract, shoudn't she be expected to keep her part of the contract? Obviously, she isn't. Men are routinely told that buying her dinner doesn't entitle him to sex--though it's unlikely he'll get sex without paying for it in some way. One result is women who go on dates, order pricey entrees, knowing full well that have no intention of giving anything in return. The man feels cheated. Resentful. And so may decide to not take no for an answer. Or simply decide to quit wasting his money on dates.

Or try Matt's approach. :)

Am betting based on your reply you've never been to a swinger/sex party.

I have, more than once, and I can safely attest to the fact that men at such parties do NOT pay for sex. The host usually does however ask for a donation to cover party expensrs, and single men do usually pay more. This is less about collecting $ and more about limiting the men to guys who are serious about being there and not just being tourists.

Swinger/sex parties in the str8 circuit are almost always hosted by MF couples or single women. In "the lifestyle" as it's called, all "the rules" of society remain the same, except for two: 1) Women can pursue sex and have it w/o fear of being shamed for it and w/o feeling like they need to get something in trade for doing so and 2) Explicit consent is normative and has been much longer than on college campuses.

The hetero swinger scene is governed largely by women, who set the tone and pace. While most get-togethers that welcome single men have about a 70% male attendance, I have been to ones where women outnumber men. Those tend to break up early b/c the women attending like h@ving more men than women. Bisexuality among women is welcome but not among men. This is b/c most str8 women find men engaging in sex w/ ea. other unappealing. Plus, due to male biology, most men are one-and-done at least for a time. The ladies want to be sure there is enough "firepower" avail. to them to leave happy.

Gay men have their own scene w/ diff. rules. That's another reason why homosexuality among men at MF parties isn't allowed. As for gay women, they also have their own scene that excludes men simply b/c they don't find men sexually attractive.

Does it shock you, Kris, that women do in fact meet men in places where they don't feel the need to trade sex for $, and actually initiate contact with men and have sex with them shortly after meeting, very much consenting? It shouldn't. You'd be surprised how many "ordinary" women are in fact doing so. It's just they don't tell people about it because they'll get slut-shamed by ppl who think women should categorically monetize their vaginas at all times and essentially be whores. They get this condemnation mostly from other women.

That most women roll this way is obvious. That some do not is less so. But trust me, it's real.

Matt, I don't know why we each have such different experiences. I h-ve joined swinger groups (online only, never been to a physical meeting).  I am not shocked about women not seeking compensation for sex because I h-ve not yet been convinced it occurs.  Your testimony is like a salesman telling me he sells ice in the arctic or sand in the desert.  Until I see it for myself, I'm naturally going to be skeptical as I know how 'supply and demand' works (and this is not a request to send me any home-made porn to prove your point, LOL!).

Let me clear-up something about my comments about heterosexual swingers paying for sex like everyone else.  I don't mean that I think they go to a sex party and offer money to a woman.  "Payment" refers to "effort" or providing a financial benefit to someone....For example, man finds a young girl living in poor country, he gives her a better life, in return she accepts swinging lifestyle.  The women that I saw in the swinger groups were all foreigners from poor countries.  Although no one pays them at sex parties, I suspect they h-ve been lifted out of poverty by the man who supports them.  None of the women seemed to be the breadwinners of the couples. In my experience it was the men who made up the vast majority of swingers, women were part of a couple, the male part of the couple made all arrangements 

I joined several swinger groups with a fake profile as a man named "Kris".  This was investigative work for a friend.  Several men sent me PM welcoming to the group and told me what to expect.  All their information supports what I am claiming here.  Most were providing financial benefit to a woman in exchange for her being their swap partner at a "free" sex party (many were married couples).   The men who were not supporting a woman in some way, and had no female partner to bring,  did not get invited to sex parties.  One hetero sexual man had been a member of the swinger's group for many months and still had not had any sex.

Also, in everyday situations, men are so accustomed to making the larger effort to get sex, that they often don't recognize it.  More than once I have heard male MRA's speak about how they would never pay for sex, dating, or female companionship then they look into getting a foreign bride from Asia!!!....somehow they miss the financial benefit they are giving the Asian woman!   In reality, they are not opposed to paying for female companionship, they just think the price for American women is too high, so they move to a cheaper foreign market......I think alot of men who say they are getting free sex are not adding everything up.....just like men who think a one night stand is "free sex", they completely forget about how many drinks they had to buy and payment for the cab, hotel, or whatever....I can't help but think some similar  mis-calculating is going on here in regards to the cost of swinging.

I also noticed that people in swinging groups are men who already h-ve children with an ex-partner (or not ever h-ving children). They are past the age of being a traditional family man.  The swinging lifestyle would not work for young people hoping to start a family.

That sums of my experience and knowledge of swingers :)   

The parties I've been to were clearly attended by women raised in the US. Some I knew were married and their husbands didn't "play" but were fine w/ them doing so. In re "effort", the MF scene has women initiating contact principally, not men.

Kris I doubt you'll do it but b4 you render judgments/opinions on experiences, you ought to actually have them yourself. Go to swinger/sex parties. You don't have to play w/ anyone. Just keep your clothes on and don't ask anyone to fool around. In every party there are "tourists", and they're fine if all they want to do is watch. Just go to a few and observe. You may see a few men approach women but usu. these are guys who've played w/ those women b4, so they have a rel'p. But most times, it's the women approaching the men (or other women) for sex. If you get approached by either a man or woman, simply say "No thank you," and that'll be that. No money changes hands and it's protocol that playing out of the party is not assumed. Safe sex is the norm. It is assumed that men will use condoms. The only time ppl have unprotected sex is if both parties agree explicitly. This though isn't typical.

There is a huge qualitative difference between what things appear to be on-line vs. what it's like to do them. Analogy: car-driving. You can read abt car-driving all you like but nothing matches actually doing it.

The author writes:

"There are powerful groups in North America pushing this agenda, but they are not usually considered feminists.”

Except, increasingly, they are.

The article in Babe was met with digital hosannas by young feminists who insisted that consent is consent only if it is affirmative, active, continuous and — and this is the word most used — enthusiastic."

I agree: it's usually feminists who want to treat women as children. Their usual stance is women are adults when it comes to rights but children when it comes to responsibilities. They want to have lots of sex but want the taxpayers to pay for birth control and abortions--and any children they decide to keep.

It's an inherent contradiction within the movement: strong women who can rule the world but who can't deal with the responsibilities that come with sex. No, men are expected to deal with those responsibilities, which is why men are held accountable if things go wrong--as in this bad date scenario. When it comes to sex, feminists treat women as children and men as adults. In that way, women can do as they wish but never be held accountable for their actions. They're not called "children," of course. They're called victims--which turns out to be pretty much the same thing.

The reason for the 2x-standard is simple: it empowers women to use accusations of any kind to get from men whatever they want or to get back or at any man they want. By casting themselves in some contexts as victims, they get power. In other contexts being seen not as a victim gives them power. In either case there's no responsibility. Paying for mistakes or abuses thus is not possible if you accept this standard.

There is power, then there is authority. Authority is power that can be held to account for mistakes and abuses. Power is when you can do as you desire *without* being held to account for mistakes or abuses.

Feminists want women to have power, not authority. Further, they want men to have neither.