Taking advantage of men

Not if it makes her happy too. Neither sex nor relationships are zero-sum games, where one side's gains are another side's loss.

Say a woman "takes advantage" of her kinky man and helps him become a near-perfect pussy-licker. She's in charge the whole time and gains a man who can make her toes curl like never before. He gains a mistress who is sometimes willing to let him give her more orgasms than he ever could with his penis.

Is the woman really his slave?

 

Ummm... I said nothing about him being a slave, or did I? What I wrote was that the woman in the scenario wasn't the man's slave, because *you* suggested that a *woman* "taking advantage" of a man might be being his slave. My scenario doesn't make *anyone* a sex slave.

Plus, for the sake of completeness, I have to mention that at least some women (and some men) definitely *are* looking for sex slaves.

 

It’s an antidote to mostly unchallenged modern pieties such as the perfectibility of human nature and the desirability and achievability of freedom of choice. In that sense it is a good and refreshing thing in the abstract. Any given relationship may be a good or bad thing for the male, depending on his naivety and his female partner’s motivations.

 

You are of course correct about most men here. Myself included, because I do have some sub tendencies too.

But there's a question of intent, and a question of consequences, an a question of consent, in that taking-advantage-of debate. Suppose a woman fantasizing about getting raped actually got raped. Would you still say she got what she wanted?

Like I said, sex and relationships are not a zero-sum game. But all parties have to want to play, and to play by the rules all can agree on, or it stops being a game.

 

I brought it up to illustrate a point. A non-consensual act that hurts the target person is something I find hard to justify, even if the person who got hurt had fantasies of something similar happening to them. Rape is such an act. And a woman taking advantage of a man's weakness for her own benefit and hurting him in the process, be it physical hurt or emotional hurt or any other kind of damage, is the same kind of evil, even if rarely as damaging as a rape is.

And I do know this isn't a game for some people. I just tried to use a metaphor that would tie into the technical term zero-sum game. My point was that if a man doesn't give an informed consent, a woman taking advantage of him to the man's detriment means her actions are at best questionable, often immoral, and easily criminal.

 

Imagine the following sentence:

It is up to the woman to have good judgement and only let herself be taken advantage of by someone trustworthy.
Would you tell that to a woman who got taken advantage of by someone untrustworthy?
If yes, I'm sure many abused women would voice a complaint.
If no, what gives you the moral right to say the exact same thing to a man?

 

I will gladly concede that the woman in question - or a man in a similar situation - behaved irresponsibly.

But in my book, the victim taking a risk and misjudging someone's trustworthiness doesn't justify abuse by that someone.

Were I to walk through a dangerous part of the town at night looking like a victim and get robbed, you'd be justified in telling me I did a stupid thing and shouldn't be surprised. But me having put myself in a vulnerable position doesn't make the criminal's actions any less criminal.

 

I know we're not, at least if we ignore the extreme cases one sometimes hears about.

But I'm talking about the principle of things here, so I'm using those criminals as an example that both showcases the basic concept (hurting someone who made a mistake and put himself into a vulnerable position is wrong) and is something about everyone can agree on (robbing someone is a crime even if the person who got robbed knew it might happen if he walked into that alley).

 

Sure, if he wanted to get robbed. But most men who enter dark alleys don't wish to get robbed.

By the same token, I'm not complaining about women who take advantage of adult men who *want* to be taken advantage of. What I do find questionable is Braddogg4345's suggestion that women in general are superior and should be taking advantage of men.

 

I believe this stance of yours is going to be the hill that you die on as they say. Trying to convince chastitymansion users that women are not superior is not going to work. Perhaps someday you will find a dominant woman with whom you are comfortable enough with, and be her bitch happily ever after.

 

I think using a man’s lust to control him and make him a better person isn’t necessarily taking “advantage” in the first place. I think it’s great!

 

Making him a better person - yes. Hurting him and those around him for own selfish pleasure - no. The latter is what I understand 'taking advantage of' to mean.

 

Can "taking advantage" be seen as female empowerment? I think so.

 

I agree the punishement for the offender should be the same whether you put yourself potenially inharms way deliberately or not.

However were you to robbed in the situation you describe as a judge I would certainly reduce any compensation you might be due... because you had deliberately chosen to put yourself in harm's way..

in a sense .. you were asking for it.. and got it... so maybe no compensation all

 

I wasn't talking about any compensations or such. My main point was simply that immoral acts remain immoral no matter what the offender's gender is. And I tried to call out the fact that too many people here seem eager to make excuses for, or even encourage, certain immoral actions if the perpetrators should be women.

In a sense, even you seem almost guilty of this. Imagine the following:

"You Honor, Miss Doe is a 5'2" 95 lbs woman and she entered that alley wearing skimpy clothing, visibly unarmed, and showed zero situational awareness - her eyes were glued to her smartphone and she admits she was re-reading the defendant's messages. She was *asking* to get robbed. Yes, the defendant admits his actions were immoral, even criminal. But Miss Doe's request that the stolen goods, found in the defendant's possession, be returned to her, is frivolous and should be dismissed without prejudice. I apologize for repeating myself, but to sum it up, she was asking for it!"

The same logic doesn't sound that okay if a woman is the victim and a man the perpetrator, eh?

 

I think it definitely depends on what a woman has the man do.

Commit a crime/ruin the man's life. No good.

Have him paint a room or cook a dinner. No problem.

The big sticking point some people seem to have is that the phrase "taking advantage of" seems to imply one person convincing someone else to do something, usually to the detriment of person 2's well being.

 

I am the same way with my wife, but my wife says sometimes she feels guilty I do so much for her. I told her don't feel guilty, just enjoy it!