"A man walks into a bar" 2

[tendaji]

Well I rather enjoy anal sex (I have some things that would make some straight men cower and cover their holes), so I would definitely accept his offer. Doing it in public just makes it more erotic >:3

 

[Bertylicious]

So this post on the "A man walks into a bar" thread

A much more pertinent question would be to ask people if they'd let the stranger spunk in their bum-hole for 5 million. That way people will be able to recognise whether or not they are whores.

got me thinking, and since it wasn't the focus of the thread, I thought I'd make one for it, but alter the conditions. Forgive me if this sounds like the bad intro to a porn film or something.

So you're in the empty bathroom of a bar, doing your business, when a man in a suit walks into and stands besides you, admiring your junk. Assuming you don't go looking for these scenarios, you're shocked, finish and tuck it back in (and, if you're not freaked out already, you shout him down). He tells you that he'll give you £1 million if you let him fuck you in the ass, in broad daylight, in public. He says that he'll give you the money first upfront, but he has a gun in his pocket, and if you try to run away, he'll shoot you dead.

Would you accept or decline his offer?

EDIT: He gives you proof that he's done an STD test and he's clean.

I don't need a million quid so no. Seriously, I struggle to comprehend why anyone would say yes to this or a similar question. If you want to be rich, wouldn't you want to be rich to prove that you're better than other people? All the money-orientated people I know are this way inclined and quick money would be meaningless to them, even though they'd be more than happy to persue all manner of horrible means to make their money.

Everyone who said yes to this are the reason we are blighted with reality television. Fie on the lot of you!

EDIT: Unless you said yes because it has long been a sexual fantasy of yours. You live that dream you filthy diamond!

 

[hazabaza1]

I'll stay poor, thanks.

 

[Dags90]

Seriously, I struggle to comprehend why anyone would say yes to this or a similar question. If you want to be rich, wouldn't you want to be rich to prove that you're better than other people? All the money-orientated people I know are this way inclined and quick money would be meaningless to them, even though they'd be more than happy to persue all manner of horrible means to make their money.

First off, 1 million pounds isn't going to make you "rich". Most of the people on this forum are young enough that they'd still have to work for a living after getting the million pounds. I don't want to be "rich" to prove anything. I want to live comfortably. I want to be able to enjoy myself and not have to worry about debts. Having a million pounds would make it so I could work, but also never have to worry about things like a mortgage or car payments. If I lost my job, I wouldn't be facing the repo man or homelessness.

 

[Arbi Trax]

How about £50,000 for a soapy hand shandy (eye contact optional)?

Spoiler

And I get to decide where he finishes.

You say he's a businessman, so let's negotiate!

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Everyone has a price. You seem to by trying to set the price exceptionally in the intent of proving the vast majority are whores.

That is wrong. Being a whore actually involves taking or asking very little for sex. Which in itself isn't really a bad thing.

That low price could simply be your own enjoyment. It could be $15 for a blowjob as I was offered once by a very kindly stripper with an oddly deep voice in Seattle. It also involves doing so on a regular basis. There is no way that taking an absurdly large amount of money for some form of sex one time makes one a whore. Except by way of whore also being a term for a prostitute and a prostitute being a person who takes money for sex.

There is also the evident homophobia in this post as well. The public shaming is hardly touched on at all as a factor in the hypothetical scenario. What does get most of the attention is the fact that this is a guy asking another guy, and the implied wrongness of that action.

What are you on about? It was that other guy who said that it makes you a whore.

And of course, I'm "evidently homophobic". Because you know me in person, right? I didn't touch on the public shaming because the consequences of being done in public should be obvious. The only way it's wrong is if you morally object to letting a stranger have sex with you in public, as well as it being an illegal act itself. It's nothing to do with sexual orientation.

You don't have to actually say (or type) a word or phrase to imply something. Wrongness is attributed to the entire scenario by the fact that you imply money is needed to coerce someone into doing it. Which is true, most people do not immediately have sex with strangers in public places just because they are asked nicely. The overall context is the wrongness of those actions. That more weight is held on the fact that is is a man asking another man than the public shaming it can lead one to believe that it is more important to you. Also the unneeded inclusion in the setup (especially they way it is worded) of a man looking at another man's penis makes it seem like that is a very real worry to you. Hence the evident homophobia.

I'm not saying you go around making fun of homosexuals. I'm not even saying you think about doing it. What I am saying is that homosexuality is confusing to you and confusing things cause people to be apprehensive about them, and that when they are apprehensive about them without know why they shy away from them and treat them differently. You probably shy away from other males in those confusing situations that can be intimate (and no sexual connotations are not what you should think of first with that word it means personal, private, close etc).

You realize that you're the only person who's reacted this way to my thread, right?

Look, if you want, I'll go back and edit it out. I'm not even sure myself why I mentioned the part about the man looking at another man's penis. Maybe I thought that it might be somewhat important to the person to know about the other's intentions. But seriously, I don't need someone giving me some kind of psychology 101 when you don't even know me.

I guess I did kind of aim this question about men, however, so perhaps I should apologize for any offence that may've been taken, but that was not my intention. Jeez, people should just lighten up around here.

That is the mother of all fake apologies. You are basically saying I must have been offended, and you are sorry that I was offended. Not even sorry that you caused offense through confusion. No it's all my fault I was confused and you are just sorry it happened. Not that I was offended anyway. I don't really have any basis to be offended. I'm not gay. I don't have any gay family members or friends. I supposed my sister could qualify as a whore, but that is all her choice. I was simply pointing out something.

Oh, for fuck's sake...

Fine. I'm done with you. If someone wants to lock this thread, then go ahead and fucking do it then.

 

[Bertylicious]

Seriously, I struggle to comprehend why anyone would say yes to this or a similar question. If you want to be rich, wouldn't you want to be rich to prove that you're better than other people? All the money-orientated people I know are this way inclined and quick money would be meaningless to them, even though they'd be more than happy to persue all manner of horrible means to make their money.

First off, 1 million pounds isn't going to make you "rich". Most of the people on this forum are young enough that they'd still have to work for a living after getting the million pounds. I don't want to be "rich" to prove anything. I want to live comfortably. I want to be able to enjoy myself and not have to worry about debts. Having a million pounds would make it so I could work, but also never have to worry about things like a mortgage or car payments. If I lost my job, I wouldn't be facing the repo man or homelessness.

Well shit, you're talking about taking it in the can or killing someone for mortgage payments. You can rent you know, nobody has to die or degrade themselves for you to live like a normal person.

Unless you're talking about freedom from drudgery, in which case what would you do with your time?

 

[Dags90]

Well shit, you're talking about taking it in the can or killing someone for mortgage payments. You can rent you know, nobody has to die or degrade themselves for you to live like a normal person.

Unless you're talking about freedom from drudgery, in which case what would you do with your time?

I don't find anything degrading about anal sex or prostitution. And the point about renting and a mortgage is that if you lose your job and can't pay rent, you get evicted. It's about financial security, nothing says financial security like a million in the bank (well, except for more cash). It'll cover all those gaps in your finances that you would otherwise have to take on debt for.

 

[Random Fella]

There's some things money can't buy
One of those things is dignity
Hell, no.

 

[Bertylicious]

Well shit, you're talking about taking it in the can or killing someone for mortgage payments. You can rent you know, nobody has to die or degrade themselves for you to live like a normal person.

Unless you're talking about freedom from drudgery, in which case what would you do with your time?

I don't find anything degrading about anal sex or prostitution. And the point about renting and a mortgage is that if you lose your job and can't pay rent, you get evicted. It's about financial security, nothing says financial security like a million in the bank (well, except for more cash). It'll cover all those gaps in your finances that you would otherwise have to take on debt for.

Aw heck, I didn't want to give the impression that I was down on sex workers (ha ha) or the back passage but I'm still a mite concerned about your eagerness to trade a life or terrifying sex for security. That's kind of what I have issue with; the whole mopping up the gravy with the child's foot and saying, "it's about survival, damnit!" aspect.

It just seems like a false economy! Life is built on stable fixtures and security at the cost of something awful just doesn't strike me as security. In fact it's exploitation, self-exploitation admittedly, and the opposite of security.

Does that make sense?

 

[Binks]

I think the important question here is how large his penis is.

 

[Dags90]

It just seems like a false economy! Life is built on stable fixtures and security at the cost of something awful just doesn't strike me as security. In fact it's exploitation, self-exploitation admittedly, and the opposite of security.

Does that make sense?

Anal sex is awful? Try it before you knock it.

This still isn't making any sense to me. Especially "security at the cost of something awful doesn't strike me as security". Security is security, can't really argue with A = A. So are you trying to say that 1 million pounds won't make you financially secure?

 

[Bertylicious]

It just seems like a false economy! Life is built on stable fixtures and security at the cost of something awful just doesn't strike me as security. In fact it's exploitation, self-exploitation admittedly, and the opposite of security.

Does that make sense?

Anal sex is awful? Try it before you knock it.

This still isn't making any sense to me. Especially "security at the cost of something awful doesn't strike me as security". Security is security, can't really argue with A = A. So are you trying to say that 1 million pounds won't make you financially secure?

No, no, I meant "something awful" in a generic sense. Like gargling bong water or filing a tax return.

Okay so the thing is with Security is that isn't a tangible thing, it's a state of being. A situation. Now in my opinion Security is very much a "freedom from" kind of deal. So like free from starvation, free from homelessness and (crucially) free from exploitation. Now granted, allowing yourself to be exploited in the manner discussed is going to enable freedom from homelessness, starvation, general poverty but not freedom from exploitation. The whole state is built on it, therefore it is inherently false. If you obtained that million quid, which represents freedom from poverty, through one's own efforts (say you found it in a bag on a train for example), then that would be entirely different.

As I mentioned earlier, the only way the course of action would make sense would be if you desired the exploitation itself. Like for instance if it was a beautiful woman paying me to penetrate her every orifice with my throbbing, uncircumcised, member then I'd be highly compelled by the appeal of the sex, though I probably wouldn't go through with because, you know, it'd still basically be me whoring myself out and God knows I've tried to get into masochism but it just isn't me, you know? But still, compelling.

Is that better? I mean, I know that Security is based on more than a lack of poverty & exploitation, I was just using those as relevant elements to our discussion.

 

[Bertylicious]

Actually the unknown bag of money on a train is a poor example because you'd be terrified of being murdered by drug dealers or absent minded bankers. Winning the lottery maybe? But then you'd be a person who played the lottery and that would be so depressing in and of itself that no amount of money would ever make it better.

Maybe distant relative dies and leaves you the money? That seems okay. Lets go with that.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

There's some things money can't buy
One of those things is dignity
Hell, no.

THIS. 'nuff said.