Trading Food for Sex: Was I wrong?"

[DakotaParticipant 341]

Trading vagina for supplies and other goods is as old as life itself and quite beneficial for both parties. A recent investigation by the AP found that “UN Peacekeepers” had sex with Haitian females in exchange for goods called “transactional sex” which included shoes, phones, and laptops and perfume.

A year ago, the report says, investigators interviewed 231 people in Haiti who said they’d had transactional sexual relationships with U.N. peacekeepers. “For rural women, hunger, lack of shelter, baby care items, medication and household items were frequently cited as the triggering need,'" the report says. Urban and suburban women received "church shoes, cell phones, laptops and perfume, as well as money.” The UN Peacekeepers say that "Staff with long mission experience states there was ageneral view that people should have romantic rights’ and raised the issue of sexuality as a human right,” the report says.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/10/un-forces-trade-aid-for-sex.html

Sex for goods is a fascinating topic. A hundred years ago the average person might reply to this topic as “duh!” I figure feminists would embrace this because it empowers women to be entrepreneurs such as prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars, thus liberating women from the patriarchy all while doing it by THEIR OWN CHOICE. “My body, my choice.” So why does the system want to take “choice” away from women at the applause of feminists?

[RoyDalParticipant]

Dakota wrote:

So why does the system want to take “choice” away from women at the applause of feminists?

Women hate and fear prostitutes, because the professionals steal food off the tables of the amateurs.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Anonymous 1]

Dakota wrote:

Trading vagina for supplies and other goods is as old as life itself and quite beneficial for both parties.

Not really. It is beneficial for women, since goods are usually more difficult to get. In order to acquire goods men have to do actual work, craft or perform some kind of labor that require some degree of skill. However, in order to have sex, all a woman have to do is open her legs. Not only that, but since is the male performing all the usefull and needed tasks, STD’s have a tendency to be more detrimental to the man then the woman. After all, if a man get sick, it might diminish his ability to get resources and survive. A woman, even if she get some disease, as long as she doesn’t show the symptoms can keep spreading her legs and keep getting resources. Hell, she might even enjoy the act as much as the male partner. So no, it is not beneficial for both parties at all. I say, if you have to, trade as few resources as you can for it.

Why people keep thinking that sex is labor for women? And why they think that it is EQUIVALENT to what MEN have to do to gather resources?

[DakotaParticipant 341]

Anonymous wrote:

Not really. It is beneficial for women, since goods are usually more difficult to get. In order to acquire goods men have to do actual work, craft or perform some kind of labor that require some degree of skill.

Well said.  The point I was going for was that resources-for-sex is a mutual agreement where each party assumes the benefits as well as the risks.  Life is risk management.

What always p~~~es me off about articles like this is that the bias is always against the moral judgment of the man and not the woman.  In the article, the evil UN peacekeepers traded cell phones for sex.  Why didn’t the article say that the women had sex with strangers for cell phones?  The moral implication is that men are evil and that women (who are morally pure) can’t be trusted to make choices for themselves.

[Anonymous 12]

Dakota wrote:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/10/un-forces-trade-aid-for-sex.html Sex for goods is a fascinating topic. A hundred years ago the average person might reply to this topic as “duh!” I figure feminists would embrace this because it empowers women to be entrepreneurs such as prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars, thus liberating women from the patriarchy all while doing it by THEIR OWN CHOICE. “My body, my choice.” So why does the system want to take “choice” away from women at the applause of feminists?

It’s a conflict in Feminist ideology. Feminists aren’t going after the women who are offering their bodies up in exchange for goods, they are going after the men who are taking them up on it. If these women were living in a First World country and doing this by choice you wouldn’t hear a word but as they are in a 3rd world country Feminists would see the men as exploiting them even though these women need the goods more than some 18 year old in the first world who just doesn’t like the idea of working a regular job to pay her way through college.

 

 

[DakotaParticipant 341]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s a conflict in Feminist ideology.

Conflict indeed.  According to feminist ideology, “Every woman shall have the right to make her own decisions…depending on where she lives, that is.”

[Anonymous 12]

Dakota wrote:

Morlock wrote:

It’s a conflict in Feminist ideology.

Conflict indeed. According to feminist ideology, “Every woman shall have the right to make her own decisions…depending on where she lives, that is.”

Exactly and if the Feminists have to stop poor Haitian women from prostituting themselves so they can take some big bad men down then that is what they will do. Besides anything Left Wing will have a rule change every second day, they just make it up as they go along.

 

[13-JzzalParticipant 134]

Dakota wrote:

Why didn’t the article say that the women had sex with strangers for cell phones? The moral implication is that men are evil and that women (who are morally pure) can’t be trusted to make choices for themselves.

Because this is an article by Al Jazeera. Lets say if I want to hear something negative about Jews, the USA, Europe or just white people/men in general I would go there but I wouldn’t trust them to stick to the facts. There is being left and then there is being so left you can’t even see the center with a telescope.

[ILiveAgainParticipant]

A laptop for sex? I mean … what sort? Where did all this stuff come from? Im looking at my laptop and there is no way a shag with a tart is worth the swap.

I do however have an old 486 with win98 …… 😃

[IronVParticipant 77]

Let’em earn their stuff. It’s a matter of choice after all. The so called “transactional sex” is a great option for both sides – everyone is happy, you get what you want and give something in exchange for it. Both sides are free to decide if it’s worth having it for the cost that it’s offered. So? Why even discussing it?

Prostitution is a social phenomenon, it pre-exist civilization and even mankind, similar social interactions exist in the animal world as well.

[DakotaParticipant 341]

Werwipf…this is an AP story that Al Jazeera picked up.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_UNITED_NATIONS_PEACEKEEPERS_SEXUAL_EXPLOITATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

If you want to hear something negative about jews you should take your fingers out of your ears.  In this last skirmish on a sliver of the most poverty stricken land in the world, Israel bombed schools, playgrounds, hospitals and beaches with children chasing b~~~~.  It seems that bombing children only cost the American taxpayer 3,000,000,000 [billion] plus dollars a year in “aid” to Israel.  Quite a bargain.

[13-JzzalParticipant 134]

Dakota wrote:

Werwipf…this is an AP story that Al Jazeera picked up. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_UNITED_NATIONS_PEACEKEEPERS_SEXUAL_EXPLOITATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT If you want to hear something negative about jews you should take your fingers out of your ears. In this last skirmish on a sliver of the most poverty stricken land in the world Israel bombed schools, playgrounds, and beaches with children chasing b~~~~. Terrorists, one and all!

Well I f~~~ed up on that one. Should have spend more time on that article.

Mate I don’t want to start a discussion about Isreal and gaza here, for several reasons.

1) It would hijack this thread

2)It would end up going on for hours

3) Nothing good would come of that

4) Digging out the sources for opinions that have build up over several years would contain sifting through years of bulls~~~ and i just can’t be arsed to spend hours on something that doesn’t affect me or is affected by me.

Lets just say Isreal isn’t perfect but I have a very different opinion on the matter than you.

[DakotaParticipant 341]

Agreed Werwipft.  Topic for another thread.

[Anonymous 12]

ILiveAgain wrote:

A laptop for sex? I mean … what sort? Where did all this stuff come from? Im looking at my laptop and there is no way a shag with a tart is worth the swap. I do however have an old 486 with win98 ……

I have to admit I was wondering about the worth of a laptop in Haiti as well, unless the women want it so they can do webcam porn which probably pays better than the real thing anyway.

Keep in mind also that the Peacekeepers (if this is happening at all) are probably getting the lap tops for nothing anyway from the UN. So a very good trade for the soldiers!

[J.D SilvernailParticipant 383]

In most cases I would say that they are sluts,but in this case they were just doing that to survive. If I was starving and had to have sex with a Female U.N Peacekeeper just to get food and water I would do it. I dont blame those women ,but I do blame the Peacekeepers because that food,water,shoes, and clothing was supposed to be free. I hope that those peacekeepers get court marshalled.

I'm married to the game,but she broke her vows.

[KingOfTheSeaParticipant 1270]

RoyDal wrote:

Dakota wrote:

So why does the system want to take “choice” away from women at the applause of feminists?

Women hate and fear prostitutes, because the professionals steal food off the tables of the amateurs.

Yep. It’s the same reason that women hate sluts, though they’ll never admit it: They’re giving out the milk for free. Sex loses its value the freely available it is. By withholding it, it goes up. If we lived in a system wherein sex was on the table, there’d be nothing left for women to hold over men’s heads.

[Anonymous 18]

KingOfTheSea wrote:

Yep. It’s the same reason that women hate sluts, though they’ll never admit it: They’re giving out the milk for free. Sex loses its value the freely available it is. By withholding it, it goes up. If we lived in a system wherein sex was on the table, there’d be nothing left for women to hold over men’s heads.

She doesn’t hate sluts. She hates what the other women stand to gain through sex. It’s her circumstances (married, ugly, fat, unwanted) preventing her to be that slut she pretends to despise. If the so-called-sluts get knocked up, she finds all the empathy and emotional support for them.

Sex is always on the table. From the righteous good women. It’s yours to take, so long you have something to give her. Not a bundle of 20’s of course, because that would make her friends call her a slut. Dinner and gifts would just be fine.

[DakotaParticipant 341]

J.D Silvernail wrote:

I hope that those peacekeepers get court marshalled.

God damn son…it’s just some f~~~in’!  Seriously though, we ALL are trading sex for food.  A company that sells a product for $1,000 and pays you, the employee, $15 (which was mutually agreed upon) is having “sex” with the employee so he can buy food.  The employee may not like the “sex” but the food that the $15 buys is worth it to him.  Also, politicians love to f~~~ the voters and voters love getting f~~~ed.  We’re all f~~~ing for food in one way or another.  Reality is a bitch.

KingOfTheSea wrote:

Sex loses its value the freely available it is. By withholding it, it goes up.

That’s why I loved the “free love” movement in the 60’s.  Females figured they’d just give out love for free.  Then, years later when the smoked cleared, it dawned on them that if they gave it up for free what would be left to bargain with for a meal ticket or unjust marriage contract.  “Free love” died quick.

Anonymous wrote:

Sex is always on the table. From the righteous good women. It’s yours to take, so long you have something to give her. Not a bundle of 20’s of course, because that would make her friends call her a slut. Dinner and gifts would just be fine.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

 

[Author]

Posts