Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.





View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Friendly Theme


Morally, is Sugar Daddying/Spoiling women prostitution?

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

User avatar
Neo
Freshman Poster
Posts: 147
Joined: June 28th, 2018, 7:27 pm

Re: Morally, is Sugar Daddying/Spoiling women prostitution?

Post by Neo » October 31st, 2018, 4:54 pm

This discussion has become pointless.




Check out our Dating Sites and International Romance Tours!



Contrarian Expatriate
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2637
Joined: December 3rd, 2009, 6:57 am

Re: Morally, is Sugar Daddying/Spoiling women prostitution?

Post by Contrarian Expatriate » October 31st, 2018, 5:08 pm

Neo wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 4:54 pm
This discussion has become pointless.
Not really if you understand what is going on....

On the one hand, you have someone advocating for men's complete freedom (including freedom to sugar daddy, date, have sex, etc.) while spreading awareness of the social and religious traps that ensnare men.

On the other hand, you have someone advocating for a very antiquated and restricted view of life based on biblical dictates. The lifestyle prescribed for men in the bible is but a veritable prison of misery for men, yet this person maintains that men should do as he does, stay virgins until they get married, eventually get married, and constantly "finger wag" at men who live better, more complete, and more satisfying lives.

In a nutshell, the proverbial freedom versus tradcuck misery debate is going on here. To me that is anything but pointless because any young man who tradcucks himself is one too many!

MrMan
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2675
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 3:52 am

Re: Morally, is Sugar Daddying/Spoiling women prostitution?

Post by MrMan » November 3rd, 2018, 11:51 pm

Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 1:53 pm
I hear when cousins have children, positive characteristics can be emphasized, too, not only genetic abnormalities.
I'm not sure where you heard this, but it is not generally true. There are things such as the Founders' Effect and uncorrected hereditary mutations that are caused by this.[/quote]

A PhD student told me that, and I am not sure his source. I have read that 'inbreeding' can decrease chances of contracting sickle cell anemia in certain cases.

If I recall correctly, the Founder's Effect comes about after many generations of inbreeding, and the Amish started with 18 families hundreds of years ago. That's different than a one-off cousin marriage. Some populations do have quite a bit of first-cousin marriage, like Pakistan or Arab cultures.

Jews had some first cousin marriage, marriage within tribes, and marriages between members of different Israeli tribes, along with some blood coming in from women of conquered people who were not from the seven nations (assuming the obeyed the law. Then the Ashkenazi Jews, I've read are genetically usually 4th cousins to each other, though literally likely 30th cousins to each other. Their light inbreeding hasn't made them all deformed, and they tend to have higher IQs than most on average.
MrMan wrote:
Cousins marrying is not an immoral thing. It's just something that goes against our cultural mores.
I disagree.... Would you say siblings marrying is immoral? Well, cousins marrying is immoral for the same reason just to a lesser degree.
Do you believe in objective morality? What is morality based on, in your opinion?

I do not believe siblings, parents and children should marry each other. I believe God has forbidden these things, but not cousin marriage. We probably both have many sets of cousins in our ancestral trees from back when people lived in small villages filled with closely interrelated people. Plenty of cultures have cousin marriage. Most cultures have taboos against brothers and sisters marrying, and the genetic issues are much more dangerous in that case.

Is two cousins marrying and having children any more dangerous than a woman past 35 having a baby?
MrMan wrote:
It's possible Ashkenazi Jews tend to have higher IQs because of inbreeding.
Not true. Ashkenazi Jews have practiced selective breeding for intelligence for centuries.[/quote]

Selective breeding? Why would you say that? In many communities, parents seek partners for their children who are of equal or in some cases greater social status. You could say social status might correspond with intelligence or other genetically desireable traits. But intentional eugenics within the Jewish community for centuries? Do you have evidence for that?
But the downside has been poor genetic variation which leads to Tay-Sachs disease and other ailments common in that community.
That is still a rare disorder.
MrMan wrote:
Polygamy, God allowed it. Christ taught against a man divorcing his wife and marrying another because 'two shall be one flesh.' Monogamy is in line with the original intention of marriage.
This is again that frenetic, mental dance you tend to do when you've been proven wrong.
No, you can look up where I am going with this in Matthew 19. I was well aware of polygamy in the Bible before I encountered you on the Internet.

Slavery was regulated in the USA as well so that made it fine and dandy in your eyes?
I would say it is a good thing for our society that we do not have slavery. I do not believe owning a slave or being a slave is a sin. But slaveowners could abuse their position and sin easily. Ancient Israelite slavery was a different institution. Israelites were not allowed to turn over a run-away slave, which made being a slave almost voluntary.
Today people like yourself are simply brainwashed and fear-mongered into following it. You can't be free if you are tethered to the tales, myths, and lies of some "holy" book.
You monger plenty of fear with your own personal philospohy, which you are tethered to. You are a prisoner of your own thinking.

User avatar
Neo
Freshman Poster
Posts: 147
Joined: June 28th, 2018, 7:27 pm

Re: Morally, is Sugar Daddying/Spoiling women prostitution?

Post by Neo » November 3rd, 2018, 11:59 pm

Was it even slavery in the Bible? I think it was more like indentured servitude, and the people had to be set free at 7 years of service.

MrMan
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2675
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 3:52 am

Re: Morally, is Sugar Daddying/Spoiling women prostitution?

Post by MrMan » November 4th, 2018, 12:22 am

The so-called 'restricted view of life' is better for the whole than if every man runs around being a cad, leaving mothers to raise the children.

MrMan
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2675
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 3:52 am

Re: Morally, is Sugar Daddying/Spoiling women prostitution?

Post by MrMan » November 4th, 2018, 5:27 am

An article on why marrying cousins isn't necessariliy so bad.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

The Rothschild family has had a lot of cousin marriages.

User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 6713
Joined: August 17th, 2012, 5:22 am

Re: Morally, is Sugar Daddying/Spoiling women prostitution?

Post by Cornfed » November 4th, 2018, 6:47 am

MrMan wrote:
November 4th, 2018, 5:27 am
The Rothschild family has had a lot of cousin marriages.
But aren't they mainly ugly freaks?

Contrarian Expatriate
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2637
Joined: December 3rd, 2009, 6:57 am

Re: Morally, is Sugar Daddying/Spoiling women prostitution?

Post by Contrarian Expatriate » November 4th, 2018, 8:02 am

MrMan wrote:
November 3rd, 2018, 11:51 pm
Contrarian Expatriate wrote:
October 31st, 2018, 1:53 pm
I hear when cousins have children, positive characteristics can be emphasized, too, not only genetic abnormalities.
I'm not sure where you heard this, but it is not generally true. There are things such as the Founders' Effect and uncorrected hereditary mutations that are caused by this.
A PhD student told me that, and I am not sure his source. I have read that 'inbreeding' can decrease chances of contracting sickle cell anemia in certain cases.

If I recall correctly, the Founder's Effect comes about after many generations of inbreeding, and the Amish started with 18 families hundreds of years ago. That's different than a one-off cousin marriage. Some populations do have quite a bit of first-cousin marriage, like Pakistan or Arab cultures.

Jews had some first cousin marriage, marriage within tribes, and marriages between members of different Israeli tribes, along with some blood coming in from women of conquered people who were not from the seven nations (assuming the obeyed the law. Then the Ashkenazi Jews, I've read are genetically usually 4th cousins to each other, though literally likely 30th cousins to each other. Their light inbreeding hasn't made them all deformed, and they tend to have higher IQs than most on average.
MrMan wrote:
Cousins marrying is not an immoral thing. It's just something that goes against our cultural mores.
I disagree.... Would you say siblings marrying is immoral? Well, cousins marrying is immoral for the same reason just to a lesser degree.
Do you believe in objective morality? What is morality based on, in your opinion?

I do not believe siblings, parents and children should marry each other. I believe God has forbidden these things, but not cousin marriage. We probably both have many sets of cousins in our ancestral trees from back when people lived in small villages filled with closely interrelated people. Plenty of cultures have cousin marriage. Most cultures have taboos against brothers and sisters marrying, and the genetic issues are much more dangerous in that case.

Is two cousins marrying and having children any more dangerous than a woman past 35 having a baby?
MrMan wrote:
It's possible Ashkenazi Jews tend to have higher IQs because of inbreeding.
Not true. Ashkenazi Jews have practiced selective breeding for intelligence for centuries.[/quote]

Selective breeding? Why would you say that? In many communities, parents seek partners for their children who are of equal or in some cases greater social status. You could say social status might correspond with intelligence or other genetically desireable traits. But intentional eugenics within the Jewish community for centuries? Do you have evidence for that?
But the downside has been poor genetic variation which leads to Tay-Sachs disease and other ailments common in that community.
That is still a rare disorder.
MrMan wrote:
Polygamy, God allowed it. Christ taught against a man divorcing his wife and marrying another because 'two shall be one flesh.' Monogamy is in line with the original intention of marriage.
This is again that frenetic, mental dance you tend to do when you've been proven wrong.
No, you can look up where I am going with this in Matthew 19. I was well aware of polygamy in the Bible before I encountered you on the Internet.

Slavery was regulated in the USA as well so that made it fine and dandy in your eyes?
I would say it is a good thing for our society that we do not have slavery. I do not believe owning a slave or being a slave is a sin. But slaveowners could abuse their position and sin easily. Ancient Israelite slavery was a different institution. Israelites were not allowed to turn over a run-away slave, which made being a slave almost voluntary.
Today people like yourself are simply brainwashed and fear-mongered into following it. You can't be free if you are tethered to the tales, myths, and lies of some "holy" book.
You really do need to learn how to use the quotes in this forum. You are attributing some of your absurd quotes to me in the above, and vice versa. It makes your ability to reason and debate appear that much more a heck of a mess.

Second, you generally are all over the place and not making a lick of sense. So slavery is morally fine to you, but simple premarital sex should doom people to the fires of hell because the bible says so in your opinion? Has it occurred to you that slavery necessarily involves violence, to include murder, rape, and daily theft of uncompensated labor? Slavery cannot survive without violence and force so at what point does "Muh Bable" consider the ten commandments of thou shalt not kill, steal, or covet one's neighbor's goods?" It's high time to pull your religious "whirled view" out of your arse.

You also deem Inbreeding and consanguinity morally ok because "Muh Bable" says so? Whatever the science discovered after the writing of the bible be damned, right?

This is but a recurring theme with religious people I have noted. The frenetic mental jigs around the periphery of real issues in a manner that makes "Christians" seem like addlebrained fools. You do yourself and the "Christians" you represent an enormous disservice I tell you.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”