[Disco King]

Originally Posted by LaBelle

I just meant to say women in that situation are more likely to say yes. Not that they can't consent or shouldn't want to have sex with their idol. They are free to do whatever they want of course.

What's wrong with them being "more likely to say yes?" Not having bad breath makes somebody "more likely to say yes" to sleeping with you. Is brushing your teeth to be more attractive to others abusing the minty power of toothpaste?

Originally Posted by LaBelle

I'm not saying that. I'm saying they are more likely to say yes when in that particular situation.

So, they are more likely to say yes when they are attracted to the person? I'm not seeing the problem here.

If that attraction is based on their perception of the person's status, maybe some could argue that that's shallow, but I'm not going to judge all people who don't restrict sex to couples in monogamous romantic relationships. If two adults of sound mind want to go at it because they met in a club bathroom, the only person being wronged in this situation is the person holding in their piss in the line waiting for the stall to open.

Originally Posted by LaBelle

They are willingly putting themselves in that position, sure. But he is purposefuly creating a situation where only women who want to have sex with him meet him and that I think is gross.

People on Tinder are purposefully creating a situation where only people who want to have sex with them will meet them. I don't understand why pursuing casual sex is wrong, or why filtering out the people who don't want casual sex is wrong (if anything, its less wrong than deceptively trying to lure people who don't want it).

Originally Posted by LaBelle

By accident? lol oops I fell on top of consensual sex!!!

As in "unplanned." Like, you weren't planning on having casual sex, but you went on a date and you both decided then and there that you wanted it. Why is waking up in the morning with "finding a hookup" already scheduled on the agenda any worse than it being less calculated?

Originally Posted by LaBelle

Seriously though, he's stacking the deck in his favor, by saying only people who want to fuck him get to meet him.
Can he do it? Sure he can.
Am I allowed to think that that is morally objectionable? sure I am.

Yes, you're "allowed" to find it morally objectionable. Thus far, the conversation hasn't been about what you're allowed or not allowed to think. You're even allowed to think that sex outside of a stable monogamous romantic relationship is morally objectionable, if you want. Nobody will call the thought police on you to take you away. We're only really discussing the justification for these opinions. But yes, you are "entitled to your opinion."

Originally Posted by LaBelle

I'm not trivializing anything, if anything i'm just giving context. In society women are conditioned to associate their own self worth with being sexy or desirable and that pleasuring people is the only real value they have.

I'm not sure how seriously this argument would be taken if we framed it as "in society, men are conditioned to associate their own self-worth with being able to attract and bed women, and that they lack any real value if they are not successful in this."

Originally Posted by LaBelle

A woman exercising her sexual freedom won't cry in the morning.

The post said nothing about these women crying in the morning.

I'm sure that there are maybe a couple other reasons a person may cry the morning after sex other than having had been taken advantage of, anyway.

Originally Posted by LaBelle

You are mirepresenting what I said to make me look bad.
Are you gonna disagree that society treats women as sexual meat currency and that many many women have trouble not viewing themselves in that way?
Are you gonna disagree that fame, money and admiration can be a huge influence for someone wanting to sleep with someone else?

When a woman wants to sleep with a man because she wants his fame and money, it is the man who is to blame.

Originally Posted by LaBelle

If some random guy went to a party and said he'd only talk to women who'd be willing to fuck him, he'd be laughed off.

He'd be laughed off because the women probably wouldn't want to fuck the random guy.

If they did want to fuck him, then I guess they'd do that.

Originally Posted by LaBelle

But specifically because Maynard is famous he knows he can get away with it, if that's not abuse of power I don't know what is.

Assuming the account in the post to be true, he can "get away" with doing it because they want to fuck him. Which is the relevant factor here. Using the fact that somebody wants to fuck you to "get away" with fucking instead of getting the mockery I guess he's supposed to deserve from these people who apparently want to fuck him isn't really "abusing" anything. This argument pretty much boils down to "it's not fair to get a lot of action that I think people should be withholding from you just because you have attributes that make them want to engage in action with you." It's pretty much just shaming a person for being successful in engaging in consensual sexual encounters. It's analogous in form to slut-shaming. Not as pernicious as slut-shaming, because there isn't a history of men being oppressed for having lots of sex, but the basic formulation of the claim is the same.