German FKK Clubs - Lounge and chat area

[CaneUppHosAss]

Are people saying that guys have a choice of becoming gay or heterosexual, as they want? Does that mean that under some circumstances, some of the mongers here can see themselves being gay and being attracted to other men? That's interesting. Personally speaking, I have zero interest in any other man and you would not see me, under any circumstance, approach any other man with a 100 meter barge pole. As my name says, this cane is going up only a girls's ass, haha.

That said, if other mongers can switch between hetero or gay as the situation changes, good for them. Choice is what makes this world a better place, but my choice is made.

[Polyamorist]

Ya lahwy PC Neuro.

Kindly don't rob me of the fragile sense of virtue I get from following the straight and narrow and FuKKing only people who can produce a sample with two X chromosomes -- never giving in to the lure of the TV / TS types! My choice.

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence.

Fine, fine, it would be fun watching you tell that to Angelina Jolie. "Stop tribbing around and get back with Brad Pitt. It's not up to you cupcake: you were born straight! Here are a bunch of experts in what you feel. ".

[Neurosynth]

LOL, give me a break! Take your sjw ideas elsewhere. Because on me they don't stick. I follow logic and not media stories fed to the general public zombie listeners.

Sure there are some minor biological differences, some of which is even based on environmental factors. But several people have swayed from gay to straight and vice versa forever. In ancient Greece and rome, this was all normal. Some people even consider it to be 'bi'. Meaning both straight and gay. But you can assume your own definition whenever you pay the most focus on one side of the coin (LOL?) There is allways a combination of environment and genetics. And your comment assumes you know more about my comment than what I posted. And your assumptions throughout your comment puts you straight into the neoliberal box defining category Nick the g talks about.

Rejecting arguments based on political tribal affiliation rather than substance is a lazy lack of critical thinking.

I can find no end to experts who will attest to the fact that sexual orientation, even as it changes, is not a choice. It's not an act of will. The change in attraction happens first, and only then does one choose whether or not to pursue it.

I'll not judge your posts based on assumed abstract political affiliations. I will judge your posts negatively when they conflict with science.

From the American Psychological Association:

"Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. ".

[Neurosynth]

Salaam PC Neuro. Surely it is more demeaning to people to tell them they have no choice in the matter. In fact humans have very flexible psyches and there are tons and tons of examples of straight folk who have gradually got more and more bendy over time: Chris Birch, Marlon Brandon, Cary Grant, Alec Guinness, even Angelina Jolie.

I find Mr Pistons' anecdote very credible.

Is it demeaning to tell someone who is short that they couldn't have chosen to be tall? No. It is both true and not demeaning.

And just because someone's activity changes, does that mean they *willed* the change to happen? No. Attraction is not a choice, and changes in attraction are not a choice. One can choose whether to pursue the attraction or not, but the attraction is not a choice.

"Sexual orientation is a natural part of who you are it's not a choice. Your sexual orientation can change over your lifetime. ".

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...al-orientation

[Pistons]

Pistons. Agreeing with you I will quote Akibono:

"This is the secret to the FKK concept. By keeping prices standard, you do not waste time negotiating and you keep out the scammers. Thus, people have a good time and spend more money. Everyone benefits except the butterflies that go from club to club and scam people. The girls many earn a little less per session, but the good ones have regular customers that help they earn a nice living".

Yeah, the way to look at the FKK pricing is weather or not they price themselves above or below the willingness to pay line. But they suck at trying to find this line. Personally I believe that line lies at 70 e per 30 min. But that means 0 upselling.

If they price themselves below this line, then upselling will occur, and double pricing will prevail. Something 99% of us hate. Putting the girls on our hate list. If they price themselves above, then it will become a luxury thing only for the rich, and the mass market will be lost. Also people will go elsewhere instead of to FKK.

[Optimist]

Pistons. Agreeing with you I will quote Akibono:

"This is the secret to the FKK concept. By keeping prices standard, you do not waste time negotiating and you keep out the scammers. Thus, people have a good time and spend more money. Everyone benefits except the butterflies that go from club to club and scam people. The girls many earn a little less per session, but the good ones have regular customers that help they earn a nice living".

Btw. Nice point about ancient Greeks and homosexuality. Sexuality must to some degree be a choice: no way were all the male citizens engaging in homosexual practices because they were all biologically different from modern males who in the majority do not engage in such practices. Nobody can put all humanity in an ideological straitjacket: each person is an individual who has biological determinants but also cultural choices

[Takedown]

Well said.

But I suppose I should add that my 'anecdote' both regarding the 3 different handicapped 'smoke victims', and the 3 other examples I made in the escapism post (the gay guy included) were not anecdotes at all. All six are in fact real flesh and blood stories.

What was the point of that exactly? Smoking's bad? That's kinda like saying don't get a tattoo of a hooker's name on your foot.

[Pistons]

Selling overpriced items or unneccessary warranties to boost profit is generally not considered cruel, immoral, or criminal. Reputable watch shops might do this for example. But as I said, most businesses are just looking for a "healthy" profit margin. They are not trying to defraud or take their customers to the cleaners because these businesses plan to stay in business long term, not like some counterfeit watch salesman who changes street corners and cities every other day.

Selling counterfeit, fake items that can result in long-term suffering for the client requires higher degrees of callousness. Examples would be the Chinese companies that sold baby formula with melamine in it. Or again the Madoff scandal.

"Take someone to the cleaners" is an American idiom which means to take all someone's money or possessions in a dishonest or unfair way (Google).

Yes, I agree. Too bad really so many girls in FKK's doesn't read about this. They all think they will be out of the job within a year. But 5 years later they are still around due to the high income. But at some point it drops because they don't consider what you mention there. They just haven't been paying attention to the idea of keeping a high service moral, good attitude and integrity.

[Takedown]

Right, point was the separation of empathy and action. Also applies with your categorical empathy. Theshold or theroretical, I think we both agree that WGs can feel true empathy.

While there are thresholds involved as you suggest, I see some distinctions between the scenario I painted above, and the mother of crying baby scenario you describe.

One, I do not consider this mother's actions to be cruel, immoral, or criminal, whereas a WG taking a monger to the cleaners is. Whether it is time, money, or energy, there is a limit to how much one can give. Now if the mother were receiving baby food money from the government, but used that money instead to buy designer purses while watching her baby starve, that is a different story. However, the mother who occasionally does not pick up and comfort her crying baby knows that "in the balance" she is treating her baby well, meaning that tomorrow she will spend the entire day with her baby, once she is rested. In the balance she knows that she gives and helps significantly more than she neglects. Can we say the same for a WG--does she give more than she takes from a lovesick monger?.

[Pistons]

Salaam PC Neuro. Surely it is more demeaning to people to tell them they have no choice in the matter. In fact humans have very flexible psyches and there are tons and tons of examples of straight folk who have gradually got more and more bendy over time: Chris Birch, Marlon Brandon, Cary Grant, Alec Guinness, even Angelina Jolie.

I find Mr Pistons' anecdote very credible.

Well said.

But I suppose I should add that my 'anecdote' both regarding the 3 different handicapped 'smoke victims', and the 3 other examples I made in the escapism post (the gay guy included) were not anecdotes at all. All six are in fact real flesh and blood stories.

[Pistons]

Perhaps you don't understand my point (s).

(1) The notion that someone can "turn gay" let alone *choose* to "turn gay" is not based on facts or science.

(2) Perpetuating such a notion supports sexual bigots who would like to make sexual preference a moral choice rather than something people simply are without any choice about it.

(3) Perpetuating such a notion supports stupid guilt-based attempts to "cure" people who are gay via conversion "therapy. ".

It's a false and hurtful POV that contributes to unfair and needless suffering. That you peddle such nonsense with an assumed air of expertise makes it all the worse.

LOL, give me a break! Take your sjw ideas elsewhere. Because on me they don't stick. I follow logic and not media stories fed to the general public zombie listeners.

Sure there are some minor biological differences, some of which is even based on environmental factors. But several people have swayed from gay to straight and vice versa forever. In ancient Greece and rome, this was all normal. Some people even consider it to be 'bi'. Meaning both straight and gay. But you can assume your own definition whenever you pay the most focus on one side of the coin (LOL?) There is allways a combination of environment and genetics. And your comment assumes you know more about my comment than what I posted. And your assumptions throughout your comment puts you straight into the neoliberal box defining category Nick the g talks about.

[McAdonis]

True, but in most situations, as a seller you consider most of the things you sell to be ridiculously overpriced. Insurances for example.

Selling overpriced items or unneccessary warranties to boost profit is generally not considered cruel, immoral, or criminal. Reputable watch shops might do this for example. But as I said, most businesses are just looking for a "healthy" profit margin. They are not trying to defraud or take their customers to the cleaners because these businesses plan to stay in business long term, not like some counterfeit watch salesman who changes street corners and cities every other day.

Selling counterfeit, fake items that can result in long-term suffering for the client requires higher degrees of callousness. Examples would be the Chinese companies that sold baby formula with melamine in it. Or again the Madoff scandal.

"Take someone to the cleaners" is an American idiom which means to take all someone's money or possessions in a dishonest or unfair way (Google).

[McAdonis]

An even darker scenario is the mother of a crying baby. Sometimes the mom is so tired that she cannot garner the energy to console a crying child. My friend would even purposely go to the patio to escape the kid's cries. Did she have empathy and actually felt pain for her child? I know for a fact she did. But in that tired state, that empathy could not overcome her need for respite care of her own sanity.

This threshold theory is supported by the scenario you painted before where a WG finally cuts ties with a monger once her reasoning no longer "assuages her guilt."

While there are thresholds involved as you suggest, I see some distinctions between the scenario I painted above, and the mother of crying baby scenario you describe.

One, I do not consider this mother's actions to be cruel, immoral, or criminal, whereas a WG taking a monger to the cleaners is. Whether it is time, money, or energy, there is a limit to how much one can give. Now if the mother were receiving baby food money from the government, but used that money instead to buy designer purses while watching her baby starve, that is a different story. However, the mother who occasionally does not pick up and comfort her crying baby knows that "in the balance" she is treating her baby well, meaning that tomorrow she will spend the entire day with her baby, once she is rested. In the balance she knows that she gives and helps significantly more than she neglects. Can we say the same for a WG--does she give more than she takes from a lovesick monger?

Two, the mother is not actively inflicting pain onto her baby. I characterize this mother's behavior as "momentary" neglect of responsibility, because eight times out of ten, I assume your friend picks up her crying baby. Looking away when someone is suffering is quite different than deliberately and actively causing suffering. In most cases, the latter requires either higher levels of sociopathy or a greater degree of self-deception. The former would be the German populace that failed to intervene (passive) during the Nazi era, the latter would be the SS soldiers who executed (active) Jews as they begged for their life. In both my hypothetical scenarios with the burglar and the scamming WG, the perpetrators had already inflicted significant financial and emotional pain onto their victims, but they simply showed mercy at the final stage of their cruel, immoral, and criminal act.

[Polyamorist]

(1) The notion that someone can "turn gay" let alone *choose* to "turn gay" is not based on facts or science.

(2) Perpetuating such a notion supports sexual bigots who would like to make sexual preference a moral choice rather than something people simply are without any choice about it.

Salaam PC Neuro. Surely it is more demeaning to people to tell them they have no choice in the matter. In fact humans have very flexible psyches and there are tons and tons of examples of straight folk who have gradually got more and more bendy over time: Chris Birch, Marlon Brandon, Cary Grant, Alec Guinness, even Angelina Jolie.

I find Mr Pistons' anecdote very credible.

[Neurosynth]

Another guy I knew once was gay. He lived in a big city with over 5 million people. Had been rejected by several girls early in his life, and eventually turned gay to find comfort.

And when did you decide to be straight?

Geeze.

Sorry, I should have told you sooner. Well, what can I say? Though luck?

Perhaps you don't understand my point (s).

(1) The notion that someone can "turn gay" let alone *choose* to "turn gay" is not based on facts or science.

(2) Perpetuating such a notion supports sexual bigots who would like to make sexual preference a moral choice rather than something people simply are without any choice about it.

(3) Perpetuating such a notion supports stupid guilt-based attempts to "cure" people who are gay via conversion "therapy. ".

It's a false and hurtful POV that contributes to unfair and needless suffering. That you peddle such nonsense with an assumed air of expertise makes it all the worse.