So, Virginity...

[HussarVanburen]

Paging John Norman, one of your characters seems to have escaped...

Hm, can't tell whether you're deliberately misconstruing her or just oblivious to your own context.

In case it's the latter: you equated virginity to virtue, and that is the context of the reply. Like a handshake, a sexual act certainly can have moral weight. But if a woman showed up and said that shaking hands is the measure of a man's virtue, we'd laugh at her. Like we're laughing at you now.

The context it not merely virginity. To quote her own words:

"Sex is not a moral issue".

And surely, virginity is not the measure of a woman's virtue entirely. A woman can still be virtuous when no longer a virgin: As a wife, a mother, et cetera. However, her moral character is tainted when the loss of virginity (voluntary loss) stems from a moral failure.

Also, all sex is of a moral character. The very nature of the act is such that it cannot be amoral. It is too intimate in the relations and of too serious of gravity by nature to be anything -but- a moral issue. As I said, even casual matters with human beings often are subjects of moral value. How can this be anything but?

So glad we have an expert here to tell us who is and isn't a feminist.

Read feminist literature. I have had the distinct displeasure of doing so. The majority of the real feminists have been strikingly anti-sex.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The context it not merely virginity. To quote her own words:

"Sex is not a moral issue".

And to quote yours, "virginity is proof of virtue". If I chose to take that just as literally, you appear to be saying that a woman who lies, cheats, steals, and murders is still "virtuous" as long as that membrane is intact. Which is absurd.

And surely, virginity is not the measure of a woman's virtue entirely. A woman can still be virtuous when no longer a virgin: As a wife, a mother, et cetera.

That's awfully generous of you!

However, her moral character is tainted when the loss of virginity (voluntary loss) stems from a moral failure.

Yup. If a woman loses her virginity by doing something immoral, like raping somebody else, then feel free to call her tainted. I certainly won't argue.

Where you go barking off into the wilderness of 19th-century wrongness is the notion that losing her virginity before she meets Mr. Forever is among those "moral failures".

Read feminist literature. I have had the distinct displeasure of doing so. The majority of the real feminists have been strikingly anti-sex.

I'd point you at some sex-positive feminists - there are oodles of them around - but it seems a bit pointless if you're simply going to No True Scotsman them out of existence.

 

[CutieMouse]

The context it not merely virginity. To quote her own words:

"Sex is not a moral issue".

I don't consider sex to be a moral issue; I do consider it an ethical issue.

And surely, virginity is not the measure of a woman's virtue entirely. A woman can still be virtuous when no longer a virgin: As a wife, a mother, et cetera. However, her moral character is tainted when the loss of virginity (voluntary loss) stems from a moral failure.

So do men experience this, as well?

Also, all sex is of a moral character. The very nature of the act is such that it cannot be amoral. It is too intimate in the relations and of too serious of gravity by nature to be anything -but- a moral issue. As I said, even casual matters with human beings often are subjects of moral value. How can this be anything but?

Morality implies a religious/theological/dogmatic set of beliefs, dictating the rights and wrongs of XYZ act. Who's morality are you using to define the right and/or wrong of any particular sex act? Different faiths have different mores, which means one person's morals re: sex may not be the same as another's

 

[Netzach]

I'm the queen of arguing with sock puppets, but c'mon.

Found wandering this thread: several goats. Gotten, hopefully freed.

 

[HussarVanburen]

I don't consider sex to be a moral issue; I do consider it an ethical issue.

Unless you're spouting Hegelian philosophy, you do realize these terms are synonymous, correct?

So do men experience this, as well?

If it stems from a moral failure, yes. A man who engages in sex in a matter unworthy of him, in an undignified manner, et cetera, is certainly morally lessened by the experience.

But if you are asking if men are as defined by their virginity as women? No. The reason is simple: Women are possessed, men possess. As virginity is a quality altered by possession, it is more inherently related to a woman's status than a man. This is not to condone or promote whore mongering amongst men, as it sexually predatory behaviour from men is almost always a consequence of nihilism and lack of discipline.

Morality implies a religious/theological/dogmatic set of beliefs, dictating the rights and wrongs of XYZ act. Who's morality are you using to define the right and/or wrong of any particular sex act? Different faiths have different mores, which means one person's morals re: sex may not be the same as another's

No it doesn't. Morality implies the good, i.e. the subject matter of ethics. It has nothing inherently to do with belief, although all belief systems preach a moral system as well.

I judge what is proper by reasoning from virtue, which is itself shaped by the ontology of the subject. That is to say, the excellence of a particular thing follows the nature of a particular thing.

 

[HussarVanburen]

And to quote yours, "virginity is proof of virtue". If I chose to take that just as literally, you appear to be saying that a woman who lies, cheats, steals, and murders is still "virtuous" as long as that membrane is intact. Which is absurd.

My words were: "Your virginity is a proof of your virtue." A proof. Not the proof. The loss of virginity in improper context always entails a moral depravity to some extent, such that virginity is de facto proof of a lack of that sort of depravity.

But no: A murderess is not virtuous because she happens to be a virgin. That's silly.

That's awfully generous of you!

Aristotle classified magnamity as a virtue.

Yup. If a woman loses her virginity by doing something immoral, like raping somebody else, then feel free to call her tainted. I certainly won't argue.

Rape is not the only immoral act in sex. And women, as an anthropological point, tend not towards being rapists.

Where you go barking off into the wilderness of 19th-century wrongness is the notion that losing her virginity before she meets Mr. Forever is among those "moral failures".

You're much more clever than Satindesire. I mean that. I liked that "barking off into the wilderness...".

But yes, precisely: A woman who loses her virginity prior to being claimed is sexually worthless and greatly diminished in moral worth.

I'd point you at some sex-positive feminists - there are oodles of them around - but it seems a bit pointless if you're simply going to No True Scotsman them out of existence.

"Sex positive" feminism is merely the consequence of certain feminists not grasping the logic of feminism itself. Subjecting yourself to unbridled male lust can never be the means whereby you achieve liberation from patriarchical norms. Reducing yourself to a hole is a lack of power, not a gain.

 

[Netzach]

OMG it's almost cute.

 

[Netzach]

It's got a red convertible and a combover. And the attendant reasons, I believe.

 

[Dyslexicea]

I am stunned by your ethical genius and bravery. To think, you stand so stalwart against the collective wisdom of the ages, striking down the "archaic" principles of the past to erect yours upon......well, I can't really see -what- upon, save some indignance. Oh, petulance as well.

So your stunned that we don't rejoice in the patriarchal world you lovely men have created for us. Your, and I mean your collective wisdom is insanity. A world of perpetual wars. A world where more in spent on war and military than social needs. A world where health care is considered a privilege not a right. A world where most of us are considered property of some man, or even men. A world where many men believe we have no rights, we're yours for the taking. We're esteemed as your own because you somehow believe you own us. A world where we work just as hard as you men do but are paid less, if we're even paid at all or even allowed to work. A world where to advance we have to be better than you are just to be considered your equal. A world where the wrong skin color mean your much less likely to live a rewarding life. A western world where if you happen to be of mixed race your just not fucking white enough. This is the world you so dearly love, you want to talk about ethics? What's ethical about a world where one MAN can push a button and not only destroy the human race but the whole damn planet.

I, for one, want out of your wonderful world, I want to create a world where we're all equal, where we love not hate. The truth is you men have created a world for far too many it's nothing more than hell on earth. So pardon me if I don't see your wisdom of the ages.

And nonsense pseudo-feminism. I say pseudo-feminism, by the way, as all the serious feminists were anti-sex.

The feminist you seem to think were anti-sex saw the world as it was, we were/are second class, maybe even third if you consider the sons of the fathers and we were seen as sex object, merely a receptacle for a man's penis. No my dear boy your wrong I've highlighted why they said all penetration by a man was rape, which isn't exactly anti-sex.

It's amusing that you think that you elevate women by reducing them to the status of holes, and their bodies as clever substitutes for one's hand. By "liberating" woman from ownership, and reducing sex to merely an amoral act, you would have women be treated precisely as the mere satisfaction of desire that is in fact dehumanizing. Heaven forbid that a woman be cherished for her virtue and esteemed as one's own, so let us instead use her as something like a meat tube to get our rocks off.

That is how you do believe sex is, it's evident from your many posts, you do on to us for your pleasure. If most men believe as you do than in fact any penetration by that thingy hanging between your legs is rape and immoral. Sex between people is each doing on to the other for each other's pleasure and for the satisfaction of both. It's not about ownership, it's not about love, it's sex done the way it should be, there is nothing immoral about sex unless it's I do on to you to only satisfy my own lustful pleasure.

By the way most feminists weren't anti-sex, many advocated becoming lesbian and I assure you those who did so, did have sex, as a matter of fact better sex then they ever had with a man.

Let me quote Jeanne Cordova, someone you should know since you know so much about feminists.

"Men want desperately to believe that lesbians either hate men or just haven’t found the right one. Paul was everything a woman would want - sexy, gentle, caring. Still boring. I suppose it’s too hard for men to admit the simple truth: for lesbians, sex with them is like peanut butter compared to caviar; like “The Donna Reed Show’ competing with Gone With The Wind."

 

[Dyslexicea]

"Sex positive" feminism is merely the consequence of certain feminists not grasping the logic of feminism itself. Subjecting yourself to unbridled male lust can never be the means whereby you achieve liberation from patriarchical norms. Reducing yourself to a hole is a lack of power, not a gain.

I don't subject myself to bridled or unbridled male lust, so I guess you agree with many of the feminist of the 70's and 80's, we all need to be lesbians. I assure you lesbians don't look upon women as holes.

Why are you so afraid of sex positive feminism, you support your right to have the same old, same old patriarchal society we were born in. If sex positive feminism is going to turn all women into cock hungry sluts it's going to fail. Isn't that what you want? Failure?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Why are you so afraid of sex positive feminism, you support your right to have the same old, same old patriarchal society we were born in. If sex positive feminism is going to turn all women into cock hungry sluts it's going to fail. Isn't that what you want? Failure?

It's a Straw Feminist thing. Easier to ridicule feminism as a dogma of repression and misery if you start by No-True-Scotsman-ing all the inconvenient feminists who are out there having fun and enjoying sexuality.

Anyway, I'm headed off on holiday tomorrow, so that's probably the last from me on this.

 

[Netzach]

People swinging dick do not get to be the arbiter of feminist or not feminist.

Look, it can be dealt with in less than a tweet's worth.

 

[satindesire]

I don't understand how he can make the logical leap of "Sex is not a moral issue equals women are just holes."

That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said, Trollboy. The whole reducing all women to be objects that need to be owned is reducing them to "just holes". You DO understand that, right?

Probably not.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

*Somebody* has been owned in this thread.

And I don't think it's been any of the women.

*snerk*

 

[satindesire]

*Somebody* has been owned in this thread.

And I don't think it's been any of the women.

*snerk*

hi5!

 

[HussarVanburen]

So your stunned that we don't rejoice in the patriarchal world you lovely men have created for us. Your, and I mean your collective wisdom is insanity. A world of perpetual wars. A world where more in spent on war and military than social needs. A world where health care is considered a privilege not a right. A world where most of us are considered property of some man, or even men. A world where many men believe we have no rights, we're yours for the taking. We're esteemed as your own because you somehow believe you own us. A world where we work just as hard as you men do but are paid less, if we're even paid at all or even allowed to work. A world where to advance we have to be better than you are just to be considered your equal. A world where the wrong skin color mean your much less likely to live a rewarding life. A western world where if you happen to be of mixed race your just not fucking white enough. This is the world you so dearly love, you want to talk about ethics? What's ethical about a world where one MAN can push a button and not only destroy the human race but the whole damn planet.

The only way someone can esteem something as one's own is to own them.

As for the rest: Please put down your copy of "Herland" and kindly go fuck yourself. For I have honestly no desire to tackle your far-left talking points.

Oh, and it is been conclusively shown to be a myth that women make less than men when you account for hours, length of work, time in the position, et cetera.

I, for one, want out of your wonderful world, I want to create a world where we're all equal, where we love not hate. The truth is you men have created a world for far too many it's nothing more than hell on earth. So pardon me if I don't see your wisdom of the ages.

LOL. Okay bell hooks. Okay.

The feminist you seem to think were anti-sex saw the world as it was, we were/are second class, maybe even third if you consider the sons of the fathers and we were seen as sex object, merely a receptacle for a man's penis. No my dear boy your wrong I've highlighted why they said all penetration by a man was rape, which isn't exactly anti-sex.

No you were not. A "mere receptacle" for a man's penis is not provided for materially, emotionally, and spiritually by men who are socially obligated to do so. A woman who is so "liberated" that she gets nothing from sexual availability is the one who is treated as a receptacle for a man's penis. That is: a whore.

It certainly is "anti-sex" to say that penetration (the means whereby heterosexual intercourse is achieved) is rape.

That is how you do believe sex is, it's evident from your many posts, you do on to us for your pleasure. If most men believe as you do than in fact any penetration by that thingy hanging between your legs is rape and immoral. Sex between people is each doing on to the other for each other's pleasure and for the satisfaction of both. It's not about ownership, it's not about love, it's sex done the way it should be, there is nothing immoral about sex unless it's I do on to you to only satisfy my own lustful pleasure.

Rape has a very specific definition. Doing things "for your own pleasure" does not constitute rape.

By the way most feminists weren't anti-sex, many advocated becoming lesbian and I assure you those who did so, did have sex, as a matter of fact better sex then they ever had with a man.

Lesbians have the least sex of all sexual orientations, to note.

Only a very small amount of feminists have ever advocated radical lesbianism.

Let me quote Jeanne Cordova, someone you should know since you know so much about feminists.

"Men want desperately to believe that lesbians either hate men or just haven’t found the right one. Paul was everything a woman would want - sexy, gentle, caring. Still boring. I suppose it’s too hard for men to admit the simple truth: for lesbians, sex with them is like peanut butter compared to caviar; like “The Donna Reed Show’ competing with Gone With The Wind."

Save the lie of this shown by the fact that a goodly portion of the lesbian community (I think somewhere approaching 90 percent?) have had sexual encounters/relationships with men.

 

[HussarVanburen]

People swinging dick do not get to be the arbiter of feminist or not feminist.

Look, it can be dealt with in less than a tweet's worth.

Feminism is a (pesudo-)philosophical position, not a sex. Ergo, being a man or woman does not matter.

 

[HussarVanburen]

I don't understand how he can make the logical leap of "Sex is not a moral issue equals women are just holes."

That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said, Trollboy. The whole reducing all women to be objects that need to be owned is reducing them to "just holes". You DO understand that, right?

Probably not.

It's very easy. If sex is not a moral issue, then women cannot be valued as moral beings in the sex act. They are just holes then, as they hold no worth. If what I am doing to you has no moral worth, then what you are in the act of what I am doing has no worth.

Very simple.

 

[HussarVanburen]

I don't subject myself to bridled or unbridled male lust, so I guess you agree with many of the feminist of the 70's and 80's, we all need to be lesbians. I assure you lesbians don't look upon women as holes.

You need to learn how to use apostrophes correctly.

The fact that women deny their sexual purpose by being lesbians actually does, in fact, mean something like being "used as a hole". Though I am not suggesting that lesbians are often sexually predatory to other women. Lesbians are, after all, notable for "nesting behaviour". Homosexual men are more of the "fucking has no moral significance" sort.

Why are you so afraid of sex positive feminism, you support your right to have the same old, same old patriarchal society we were born in. If sex positive feminism is going to turn all women into cock hungry sluts it's going to fail. Isn't that what you want? Failure?

Because I do not want a world of "cock hungry sluts". I want a world of women who are fulfilled in the realization of their purpose as obedient wives and mothers.

Moreover, failure of any system of philosophy or politics can be delayed for decades (centuries!) by dissemination of the doctrine through coercive and/or deceitful means.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I've figured it out!

HVb is actually Glenn Beck in disguise!

 

[Dyslexicea]

The only way someone can esteem something as one's own is to own them. .

Your "something" say it all, we're just a thing to men like you.

As for the rest: Please put down your copy of "Herland" and kindly go fuck yourself. For I have honestly no desire to tackle your far-left talking points. .

In other words you CAN'T!

Oh, and it is been conclusively shown to be a myth that women make less than men when you account for hours, length of work, time in the position, et cetera.

Site your proof. We all know, if you can even find a study backed up by real data, it's going to come from a far left think tank supported by religious fanatics and republicans.

No you were not. A "mere receptacle" for a man's penis is not provided for materially, emotionally, and spiritually by men who are socially obligated to do so. A woman who is so "liberated" that she gets nothing from sexual availability is the one who is treated as a receptacle for a man's penis. That is: a whore.

So the vast majority of us are just whores. From an outsider looking in to most of my friends hetero relationships, I see the materially, his new truck, his new bass boat, his new snowmobile, his new golf clubs so on and so forth. His emotional support as loneliness as he spends his time with his buds using all his new material things or drinking at a sports bar with his buds, while she stays home burdened with child care and domestic chores.

Liberated or not NO WOMEN gets anything from just being AVAILABLE for someone else's sexual pleasure.

It certainly is "anti-sex" to say that penetration (the means whereby heterosexual intercourse is achieved) is rape.

No it's anti-male, anti-men just like you. Why would any woman want the hop on hop off type sex men like you provide when she can do more with her own finger.

Rape has a very specific definition. Doing things "for your own pleasure" does not constitute rape.

In the context brought up by you and your contention that feminist were anti-sex "for your own pleasure", meaning men like you, it was considered rape. You can change horses in the middle of the stream but you're likely to drown.

Lesbians have the least sex of all sexual orientations, to note.

Again I say site the study, one with real participation from us, you can't, we don't respond to studies about us. The only studies you can site are snow ball studies, which if you know anything at all, you know such studies are based on hearsay, a friend of a friend who knows a friend who's friend is a lesbian. Statistician know snow ball studies are worthless.

Only a very small amount of feminists have ever advocated radical lesbianism.

Again you are uninformed, which of course shows your claimed knowledge of feminism is just the typical bullshit, many second wave feminist did advocate becoming lesbian.

By the way, I'm a radical lesbian feminist, which has nothing to do with straight women becoming lesbians, again your knowledge of feminism is lacking. Most of us do not and never did agree with the sentiment that all women should be lesbian, if you're straight stay that way we'll love you as a sister but we don't want to be your lover. Although I may have to rethink my belief as you're tipping the scales in favor of all women being lesbian.

Save the lie of this shown by the fact that a goodly portion of the lesbian community (I think somewhere approaching 90 percent?) have had sexual encounters/relationships with men.

I think, doesn't make it so, please show me a source that proves your figure. Many of us have had sexual relationship with men. I'm not gold star but what's your point? We've had sex with men and women both so we can't be the judge of which gender makes the better lover. Rather strange logic!

 

[Dyslexicea]

You need to learn how to use apostrophes correctly.

So my points are worthless because I used the very common placement of an apostrophe in 70's and 80's instead of your preferred 70s, 80s or maybe the common '70s, '80s. Rather arrogant of you.

The fact that women deny their sexual purpose by being lesbians actually does, in fact, mean something like being "used as a hole". Though I am not suggesting that lesbians are often sexually predatory to other women. Lesbians are, after all, notable for "nesting behaviour". Homosexual men are more of the "fucking has no moral significance" sort.

Your homophobia is showing. It's funny a man who hates us seem to be the authority on lesbian's and gay's life style.

MEN are MEN are MEN and the only difference between gays and hetero men is that we do have control of our sexual desires, if we didn't you hetero men wouldn't be any different than gays are.

Because I do not want a world of "cock hungry sluts". I want a world of women who are fulfilled in the realization of their purpose as obedient wives and mothers.

Moreover, failure of any system of philosophy or politics can be delayed for decades (centuries!) by dissemination of the doctrine through coercive and/or deceitful means.

Forcing women to be your slaves isn't coercive or deceitful? You surely are one sick puppy.

 

[CutieMouse]

If it stems from a moral failure, yes. A man who engages in sex in a matter unworthy of him, in an undignified manner, et cetera, is certainly morally lessened by the experience.

But if you are asking if men are as defined by their virginity as women? No. The reason is simple: Women are possessed, men possess. As virginity is a quality altered by possession, it is more inherently related to a woman's status than a man. This is not to condone or promote whore mongering amongst men, as it sexually predatory behaviour from men is almost always a consequence of nihilism and lack of discipline.

Both sexes equally give up, give away or lose their status as virgins.

Because I do not want a world of "cock hungry sluts". I want a world of women who are fulfilled in the realization of their purpose as obedient wives and mothers.

Your position appears to be very marital in scope, with the implied goal of women being virgins until married/"possessed" by their husbands. Do you feel men should enter the marriage bed as virgins, as well?

 

[HussarVanburen]

Your "something" say it all, we're just a thing to men like you.

Yes. Women are things. Valued things. Or can be, if they deserve value.

In other words you CAN'T!

Can and want are two separate things. I frankly do not have the desire to school you on why your beliefs are nonsense.

Site your proof. We all know, if you can even find a study backed up by real data, it's going to come from a far left think tank supported by religious fanatics and republicans.

Cite. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/02/27/business-warren-farrell-women-men.html

Warren Farrell has an entire book. Read it. The book is referenced here.

So the vast majority of us are just whores. From an outsider looking in to most of my friends hetero relationships, I see the materially, his new truck, his new bass boat, his new snowmobile, his new golf clubs so on and so forth. His emotional support as loneliness as he spends his time with his buds using all his new material things or drinking at a sports bar with his buds, while she stays home burdened with child care and domestic chores.

Liberated or not NO WOMEN gets anything from just being AVAILABLE for someone else's sexual pleasure.

"Burdened with child care and domestic chores" isn't exactly a burden. In fact, it is an expression of what women are best at and what best serves their purpose. However, if a man is mistreating his wife by not valuing her in accords with the standards of his sex and virtue, then well, that's his moral failure and I pity the woman who is not properly owned. I do. Legitimately.

But no, women are not slaves because they work at home and with children. That is freedom for women. To be the world to those you love, as a woman is as a wife and mother, is to be valued in the highest. And the domestic chores are simply an expression of the way that women are, in part, the world. The rest is the love they show.

No it's anti-male, anti-men just like you. Why would any woman want the hop on hop off type sex men like you provide when she can do more with her own finger.

You have a complete lack of understanding of female sexuality to assume that a finger is the same (or superior to) as the penis of the man you love.

In the context brought up by you and your contention that feminist were anti-sex "for your own pleasure", meaning men like you, it was considered rape. You can change horses in the middle of the stream but you're likely to drown.

No, actually feminists were anti-sex entirely. They suggested sexual activity was inherently bad and devaluing.

Again I say site the study, one with real participation from us, you can't, we don't respond to studies about us. The only studies you can site are snow ball studies, which if you know anything at all, you know such studies are based on hearsay, a friend of a friend who knows a friend who's friend is a lesbian. Statistician know snow ball studies are worthless.

LOL. Lesbians don't participate in science? Okay. I won't even cite a source, then.

Again you are uninformed, which of course shows your claimed knowledge of feminism is just the typical bullshit, many second wave feminist did advocate becoming lesbian.

Minor radical feminists. It's like saying philosophers advocate public masturbation because Diogenes did.

By the way, I'm a radical lesbian feminist, which has nothing to do with straight women becoming lesbians, again your knowledge of feminism is lacking. Most of us do not and never did agree with the sentiment that all women should be lesbian, if you're straight stay that way we'll love you as a sister but we don't want to be your lover. Although I may have to rethink my belief as you're tipping the scales in favor of all women being lesbian.

And you are a minor (perhaps virtually non-existent) lesbian """philosopher""".

I think, doesn't make it so, please show me a source that proves your figure. Many of us have had sexual relationship with men. I'm not gold star but what's your point? We've had sex with men and women both so we can't be the judge of which gender makes the better lover. Rather strange logic!

It just shows your purported "lesbianism" is likely a psychological hangup.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2021/first_sex_for_most_lesbians_is_with_a_man/

85 percent of British lesbians and bisexuals have had sex with a man.

 

[HussarVanburen]

So my points are worthless because I used the very common placement of an apostrophe in 70's and 80's instead of your preferred 70s, 80s or maybe the common '70s, '80s. Rather arrogant of you.

Common does not mean right. Please use them correctly. Not for my sake, but for the language. Thanks.

Your homophobia is showing. It's funny a man who hates us seem to be the authority on lesbian's and gay's life style.

Homophobia implies fear of the same, or fear of men. I have no fear for the same nor fear for the same. I also do not hate homosexuals. I have not expressed any passionate expression of anything.

MEN are MEN are MEN and the only difference between gays and hetero men is that we do have control of our sexual desires, if we didn't you hetero men wouldn't be any different than gays are.

No, there are plenty of differences between heterosexual and gay men. Gay men are, as a generality, vastly more promiscuous.

Forcing women to be your slaves isn't coercive or deceitful? You surely are one sick puppy.

One cannot force somene who already is, by nature, of a certain sort. Women are the passive sex. Therefore, to treat them passively is to treat them in line with their nature.