It’s blazingly hot. After several weeks of light exercise as I coped with grief over Matilde and my father, I’m easing back into regular working out. I’ve boxed and Pilate-ed today, and am ready for a long, steamy run up some local mountain tomorrow morning. And somehow, I need to work in time to watch tennis, cycling, and World Cup. Viva Italia and all that.
The comments below Wednesday’s post on the "sausage casing girls" article are revisiting familiar territory: the interplay of women’s dress and men’s "hardwiring". "Perplexed", for example, writing about men’s ability to control the urge to stare at women’s bodies, says
I think it’s more about a hardwired response in men - it’s an arresting sight - something men are compelled to view, often against their better judgement.
Just yesterday, I was talking to one of the guys I know well at my boxing gym. He’s just about my age, and is very, uh, single. He’s fond of rhapsodizing about the virtues of promiscuity, repeating over and over again that it’s "natural" for a man to want many partners and to become dissatisfied with monogamy. My boxer friend, like Perplexed and countless other folks, insists that male sexual behavior is rooted less in culture and more in biology. Rarely do any of these fellows have a sophisticated understanding of physiology, but they often will make noises about testosterone, the Y chromosome or some other aspect of our DNA. Regardless of the biological details they reference, the point is always the same: men are "hardwired" to stare, ogle, lust uncontrollably, cheat, what-have-you. Call it the "all men are dogs" or the "I can’t help it, it’s my nature" excuse.
I’m not a scientist. I have only a college-educated layperson’s understanding of hormones and genetics. But I have no intention in debating science with those whose understanding of the field is more sophisticated than my own. I may have a hubristic streak, but I know my limits! For the sake of discussion, I’ll concede that testosterone and the Y chromosome have a real impact on male sexual desire. I won’t question the hard-wiring.
What I do question as a pro-feminist man is whether our "nature" is ever an excuse for poor behavior. It’s one thing to acknowledge the very real presence of physiological factors that influence our wants; another thing altogether to suggest that men have little or no control over how they respond to those influences! What I find so exasperating is that so many men confuse an explanation for an excuse, denying their own ability (or that of the "average man") to resist and control those impulses.
I wasn’t born knowing how to control my bladder. It’s natural for me to pee on myself whenever the need occurs; it’s what I did for the first two years of my life (and, intermittently, a bit beyond, but that’s another story!) I drink lots and lots of caffeine these days; my bladder gets full quite often. The urge to pee isn’t in my imagination — it’s a biological reality! But from an early age, I was taught that there was an appropriate time, place, and manner for relieving myself. As a child, I was taught that I could master the very real, very powerful, demands of my body. I often go out to coffee with friends and colleagues, and sometimes they buy me very big ("Venti") drinks. It is natural that within under an hour after consuming all that liquid, I need to pee very badly. But it would be absurd if I blamed my friends, or Starbucks, for "making me need to pee"; I’d be laughed at if I wet myself and then claimed I had no control over my bladder. I am convinced that when my commenters suggest that men "can’t help but stare" at a woman’s exposed breasts or legs or bottom, they’re making just as indefensible an argument.
In my avocational work with teen girls and boys in youth groups, I never, ever try and talk them out of the reality of sexual desire. (Indeed, one important task of progressive youth work is acknowledging the biological reality of female lust, a subject that tends to unnerve a surprising number of young and not-so-young folks.) I’m happy to have "my kids" share what they’ve learned in science classes about hormones and chromosomes and their influence in our lives. Hear me on this, readers: a feminist theory of male accountability and an honest understanding of biology are not incompatible! But once we affirm the very real power of human desire, we work to refute the myth that desire alone justifies action. Even at sixteen, in the midst of the tempest of puberty, sexual self-control is as real a possibility for young men and women as control over urination. The difference is that they’ve been taught from near-infancy that the latter is a biological impulse they can master, while far too many young boys are taught that it is women who are responsible for managing male desire.
It would be absurd to deny that many young men are aroused by the sight of an attractive woman wearing revealing clothing. What pro-feminists deny is that women are somehow responsible for male arousal. A girl in a mini-skirt is no more responsible for her classmate’s lust than the barista at Starbucks is for my full bladder! I have as much control over where my eyes linger as I do over what I choose to drink; whatever physiological reactions I experience as the result of either activity (drinking coffee, ogling) are my responsibility and mine alone. While in other fora we can have long and interesting discussions about dress codes and "appropriateness", pro-feminist men ought to be adamant that whatever the imperious demands of our flesh, the human will is stronger still.
Right! Also, merely dressing more modestly does very little to change men’s thoughts or behavior. In some parts of the world, a flash of a woman’s ankle or wrists is said to drive men to uncontrollable lust. Even here in the U.S., I have gotten salacious comments or looks even when dressed quite conservatively and so have most women I know. Once we start holding women responsible for men’s responses to how we dress, it never ends.
As for whether women should be relieved of responsibility for how they dress: I believe that both sexes have a social responsibility to dress appropriately for whatever occasion they are participating in. I don’t think a woman should dress in sausage casing for church or court or the office or school but I don’t think a man should wear a muscle shirt or a plunging neckline on those occasions either. But even if someone dresses inappropriately for a particular event, we all have a social responsibility to pretend not to notice and to be ourteous to the individual even if he or she has made some unfortunate clothing choices. Certainly another person’s bad dressing does not relieve me of my responsibility to be kind and polite to that person and, as Hugo has observed before, to respect that person’s humanity. I look far more askance at someone who fails the responsibility to be polite than someone who dresses badly.
Good manners, people. It’s not that hard.
There is always common sense and parental involvement –
http://www.sydneyscloset.com/ourstory.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121608,00.html
Clothes provide signals to the viewer. It is up to parents, youth leaders and peers to help a young person understand what signal a young man or woman is sending. Whether it is modest, religious, skank, slob, goth or biker, your dress does tell a story. Might as well send the message you intend to send.
Or, rainbow, you can appreciate that you’re not what you wear and that there are better ways to judge what a person is about.
The other thing is that there is no reason to think that a woman sending a particular message with clothing ever gives a license to a man to do whatever he wants.
I bet most women on the planet have at some point or another dressed to send a message that “I’m pretty!” or “I’m sexy!” or “I have a nice body.” Certainly there have been many occasions when I have dressed to send those kinds of messages and I have enjoyed the fact that people, and men in particular, may have been thinking, “She’s pretty!” or “She’s sexy!” or “She has a nice body.” I don’t see how in any way that can be said to provide a license to someone to yell, “Nice rack!” or try to coerce sex or in any other way override my basic right to respect.
There is such a thing as community and culture. Clothing is part of belonging, not belonging to a particular milieu. Wear thigh high boots, a bra, no blouse, a miniskirt and stand on Hollywood Blvd. , proclaiming your right to express yourself. No one will mistake you for Julia Roberts filming a movie.
Since I’ve been, um, tempted to dress slightly more revealing these hot summer days and just in general for some reason, I find this post very, very insightful. Thank you! This post echoes the truthful lectures you shared in class, and I loved it.
“Perplexed”, for example, writing about men’s ability to control the urge to stare at women’s bodies, says
I think it’s more about a hardwired response in men - it’s an arresting sight - something men are compelled to view, often against their better judgement.
Hugo, to quote yourself before you contradict yourself further - quoted form here:-
Two girls in the back row began to whisper furiously, passing a note back and forth with great alacrity, all the while staring with undisguised hostility at the object of all of this attention. Of course, many others were carefully observing me, trying to see if I was “checking out” my scantily-clad student. It was distracting for everyone.
The blame, according to the article I quote, lies apparently not with the audience who seem subjected to an annoyance, but the woman who dressed inappropriately.
Yet, according to your latest post, it apears that everyone is wrong and the women dressing inappropriately has a right to dress inappropriately!
Another quote:-
What saddens me most is not the fact that my students tend to pay less attention to me in a situation like this one (though I confess that does bother me, naturally), it is that so many people - especially my female students - are left feeling uncomfortable.
More tellingly:-
When the warmer weather comes, and exposed flesh begins to appear in larger splashes and patches, the anxiety level can be palpable! Here at my immensely diverse community college, it is not uncommon for some women to snarl sotto voce “who does she think she is” when they see a fellow student on display. Meanwhile, many of my male students can barely focus on the work before them.
The bolded quote would appear that women’s reactions to bare flesh should be kept in check. What do you propose, Hugo? Surely they are at fault here, since the barer of flesh is not to blame.
The unequivocal contradiction to your latest article:-
I recognize as well that revealing dress fosters a culture of competition, even among college-aged women, and that competitiveness does irreparable damage to the already fragile bonds of gender solidarity that those of us in this field are working so hard to foster.
Where do you stand Hugo?
Perplexed, in the sisterhood article I’m acknowledging the sad reality created by a culture that does hold women accountable and lets men off scot-free. “Sisterhood” is the piece in which I acknowledge the problem — this piece is about the solution.
What creates the distraction is not the scantily clad woman per se; what creates the distraction is the collective reaction to her, a reaction that is culturally and socially conditioned. There is no contradiction.
And as far as other women reacting with hostility to a gal wearing a mini-skirt, women react with hostility because they have been taught it is their collective responsibility to police their sisters. And I do think that suspending judgment and condemnation of other women and their bodies/clothing choices is a key part of the feminist journey.
You’re tired of hearing about biology and nature, I realise that. But Hugo, you’re starting to sound like a social engineer now, Marxist even.
Nature is wonderful, but also cruel and arbitrary. It sometimes takes courage to look at nature with a naked eye and just accept it for what it is, and then decide how to deal with it.
But nature is also roughly half the equation of human behaviour, so get used to that fact, and build your worldview around that fact.
Refining and improving human behaviour is about controlling our natural urges, and not changing some imaginary behaviour patterns supposedly engineered by The Patriarchy for who-knows whatever reasons they had (if they ever existed).
To make it simple, I would point out that the “testosterone” argument may look like a “biology makes us do it”, but it’s a way of saying that a) only men have these urges and that b) therefore the instruction not to look is coming from women who have “penis envy”.
I find that analogies work only to explain to another something that that individual doesn’t understand and more then likely would be in agreement with the elucidation. The urinary sphincter is under voluntary control—hormones are not. But I agree with you, men should be responsible for their ogling.
I also agree with you that men should usually censor themselves and minimize their criticism of women (mentioned in not so many words). Say if feminist/ pro feminist were as concerned about hormonal changes during menstruation and the behavior they exhibit during such times, then I could lend an ear to their critiques of how men should get it under control during similar hormonal challenges.
If we should exhibit control of our hormones then your argument begs the next question. Why masturbate? In part, the drive to masturbate must be hormonal. What are the limits to control here? Do we do it for pleasure? I could take pleasure in staring at a fine woman and not blame her for her attire. Are we socially conditioned to believe an ogle or whistle is bad when it hurts no one? If it really does hurt someone, is that because of social conditioning? If we suspend the chicken and the egg argument, we are left with both needing to take some responsibilities.
I’d like to add to Happy’s comment about how the body part that supposedly creates “uncontrollable” lust in men changes from culture to culture. While the exact body part isn’t consistent across cultures, which eliminates the “nature” argument, the social meaning of showing it always is—the part that creates “uncontrollable” lust is always a part that is socially unacceptable in public and often illegal. The rapes that follow are often characterized explicitly as punishment for the woman for her defiance and her behavior of polluting a “male” space with her female body. She shouldn’t be *there* (male-defined space) looking like *that* (female).
What’s telling is that the reaction to a breast being taken out to breastfeed isn’t characterized as an uncontrollable response, due to the social status of mothers of newborns. With the testosterone excuse stripped from them, we can see what is motivating men who abuse women for having female body parts in public. They get *angry* with these women. Ask any woman who’s had a man bitch at her for this.
There’s not really any male body parts that are equivalent to female thighs or breasts, in that they get exposed and the result is an angry/violent reaction. It’s either just appropriate or inappropriate, but it’s never an excuse for that man to be raped.
I believe the pathology of one who rapes is beyond an exposed breast or mini skirt.
Paul: Our hormones are not under control, but both our eyes and hands are; I, for one, have managed to nicely curb my urge to masturbate wildly in public.
I also believe the pathology of one who rapes is beyond an exposed breast or mini-skirt. Especially since the men I care about would stop having sex even if nearing orgasm if the women they were with suffered a sudden leg cramp or banged her head or whatever.
I happen to love this analogy, Hugo…it makes perfect sense, and includes a sense of shame for people who say they can’t help peeing on themselves in public (chortle). I know, I know. Shame. But somehow, I’m annoyed at men’s usage of the “just can’t help myself” excuse. I regularly see men whom I find downright HOT (it’s a perk of gym membership, right?). But, even if I want to steal a glance here and there, I ensure any interaction I have with the man is respectful — maybe a compliment, not a catcall.
Paul, masturbation is for pleasure. It is not hurting me to go and play with myself.
It is hurting someone to turn them into an object. That’s the difference.
Sure
It is hurting someone to turn them into an object. That’s the difference.
He’s not turning anyone into an object. It’s just your social conditioning that causes you to reach that conclusion. You have control over it.
Antigone,
What do you mean by turning someone into an object? If you are attracted to someone and you are interested in being with them, that is not turning them into an object is it? Is looking at them with lust turning them into an object? I don’t know, I’m not from this country so I do not unserstand American thinking. What is turning into an object?
Quentin; I’m sure you have very good ideas, sweetheart; but man. Look at the Q on you. It’s hot.
Hah?? You got me man. What’s hot about a Q?
C’mon bill. I can’t go there without getting rude. Just look at it. So capitalized. So round. With that little tail…
Why Arwen, I don’t have one of those, I don’t even have a tail! You’re silly! I’ve never had one of those. But thank you for saying so anyway.
Regardless of the biological details they reference, the point is always the same: men are “hardwired” to stare, ogle, lust uncontrollably, cheat, what-have-you. Call it the “all men are dogs” or the “I can’t help it, it’s my nature” excuse.
Hugo, I know I’m repeating myself here, but in your “sisterhood is easier in winter” thread, you use words like “distraction”, “uncomfortable”, “inappropriate attire”, when talking of both men and women reacting to another women wearing revealing clothing. In this thread, you talk of “ogling”. Two different takes on the same subject. One sympathises with those who suffer a distracton in an inappropriate setting, the other is talking of people suffering aggressive lechery, for which I am 100% against.
To be crystal clear: I also do not think it’s right to OGLE at a woman; I did not say it was OK to ogle at women, and never have said this, so you should retract that from this post (you strongly infer I am saying this). I am explaining how men are DISTRACTED and put ill at ease by women who wear mini-skirts and revealing clothing in an inappropriate setting (do we really need to see this in the morning at work, for example?). I’m basically saying it’s an unwanted and unasked for distraction for many men and women.
Being distracted and made to feel uncomfortable is not ogling. Example: in my previous work, there was a woman there who wore very revealing clothing - no bra, her tops were a thin material, short skirts etc. Left nothing to the imagination. When talking with her, I had to practically avoid looking at her, because even if I looked her straight in the eye I got an ‘eyeful’ of her breasts in my peripheral view. I felt annoyed by this because of the way I had to alter my behaviour just because she chose to wear highly inappropriate clothing, for whatever reason I do not know. Most of us don’t want the distraction in the first place - who enjoys a break in their concentration? I certainly don’t.
But nature is also roughly half the equation of human behaviour, so get used to that fact, and build your worldview around that fact.
Refining and improving human behaviour is about controlling our natural urges
Strangely enough, I thought this was exactly what Hugo said in his post.
Perplexed, I regret implying that you endorse ogling.
Again, the “sisterhood” post recognized the reality of the distraction, but it didn’t place the onus of blame for the distraction on women and their bodies. I do sympathize with the distracted as well — we are all so darned uncomfortable (for cultural, not biological reasons) with the human body that we are often nonplussed and disconcerted (if not aroused) when presented with a woman whose clothing reveals more than we think it should. But our discomfort is not because the wearer has violated some objective standard. To paraphrase the oft-used line from Julius Caesar, “The fault is not in the stars, or in the miniskirt, but in ourselves.”
Ok Hugo, sit down: I happen to agree with you on this (except for your comment that our culture “hold(s) women accountable and lets men off scot-free” - that’s absurd and you should know it).
I think that you had it right in your “sisterhood” article and that you have it right here. Putting it together, we have: Women should be responsible for dressing appropriately for a given situation and men should be responsible for their reaction to women’s dress. What I think is happening here is that our definitions of an ‘appropriate reaction to women’s (or men’s) dress’ are different. Some men think it’s Ok to whistle, catcall, etc. in reaction to a nicely-dressed woman, and some women think a long look is the dreaded “male gaze” and a visual rape. Both are unreasonable.
Let’s look at what I consider a comparison of the extreme case: The topic of breastfeeding in public has been raised and it’s an interesting one that I’ve thought about. The argument in favor of it is that the breast is not primarily a sexual organ (not an argument that I entirely agree with), that it’s function is to feed infants, and therefore there should be nothing wrong with breastfeeding in public. I happen to agree that breastfeeding in public should be allowed, but I also believe that women should take reasonable steps to shield themselves from view (contrary to Amanda’s biased viewpoint, many women complain about this and get men to do the dirty work vis-a-vis asking women to cover up). I think this is a reasonable compromise. Now, let’s look at the male equivalent: Hugo, you discussed your frequent peeing, something that I - who am in my 50s - can relate to more and more as I age. Let’s say you’re on a run and those 3 cups of coffee you had when you got up come due. It’s my opinion that you should be able to whip it out and pee on a bush or tree if you wish, but the law and social mores say that you can’t. Why not? Your cock is not primarily a sexual organ any more than a breast is. We use our cocks to pee with a hell of a lot more than we do to screw (or I should think that at least most of us do!). Sure, we should take care to shield our cocks from being viewed by other people, but what the f-ck, dogs are allowed to pee on bushes in the park, so why not us? Unless one has a bladder infection, urine is sterile (moreso than breast milk) so public health arguments don’t wash. I walk several miles every day to and from work and often need to go to great lengths to find a place to pee so that I don’t get arrested for “exposing myself” or “sexual harrassment” to some woman with an over-active imagination and thus doesn’t realize that I’m just a dumpy-looking older man who has absolutely no interest in her, sexual or otherwise, and simply has to pee. And there’s the crux of the problem.
What we have here is a conflict in definitions of ‘reasonable reaction.’ Depending on the woman and her mood, a man simply looking is “sexual harassment” - I say bullshit to that. IMO in such cases the woman is demonstrating extreme arrogance in that she thinks she can read the man’s mind and know with certainty that his gaze is sexually motivated. I find myself staring at women in “sausage outfits” not with lust in my mind but more with disbelief. Yes, I know that my reaction may be based on social conditioning - just like in the case of exposed breasts and penises, even in non-sexual contexts. Yet in some cases, especially when women seem to be on a mission to be offended, my look or stare is interpreted as leching. Heh, dream on girl, whatever makes you feel better.
Sure, women should be able to dress in ’sausage suits,’ expose their breasts in public, etc., but if/when they do I’m going to stare, whether they like it not. Again, acting out by making remarks, etc., is another story, but IMO looking - even staring - is reasonable and appropriate if the man thinks so. It should be his decision, just like it should be her decision to pick her clothes, etc., and get offended if she wants when a man looks or even stares. She has made the decision to get offended, but her acting out on it is no more appropriate than if a man does. We all, men and women, should act like adults and be responsible for ourselves.
We see here yet another classic example of a double standard that favors women. Feminists tell us that women are supposed to be able to dress however they want, or perhaps not at all, while men are entirely responsible for their own reactions to the sight of such women. However, if men dare to look at such women in their scanty clothes, then men are responsible for women’s alleged feelings of being objectified.
The pink elephant in the living room that feminists want everyone to ignore is that feminists treat women as children who are not capable of being responsible for their own reaction. In general, MRAs have a lot more respect for women as a group than do feminists.
Lust is not inheirantly objectifying. That, is not turning a woman into an object. Making them feel like they have no purpose beyond YOUR sexual gratification, that is making them feel like an object.
Context is important: if you are in a relationship, a little lustful gazing can be quite nice. If I don’t know you from Adam, and you don’t know me from Eve, ogling me is objectifying. It means you don’t care enough about me as a person, I’m just a prop in your fantasy.
Context is important with other types of relationships as well. That means professional relationships as well: it doesn’t matter what I wear, you should be able to control your fantasy when there’s work to be done. Woman must do the same thing with men as well.
And feminists do not treat women as children. What a stupid thing to say, especially considering many feminists are *gasp* woman. (We treat ourselves like children? What?) Pointing out that your reaction to OUR bodies is objectifying IS being responsible for our own reaction. I don’t deserve to be catcalled, at, groped, or yelled at. I especially don’t deserve to raped because of wearing “inappropriate” attire. What you are basically saying is these are okay social punishments for acting outside of the accepted norm, and I do not agree with that. Why don’t you try having some responsibility for YOUR reaction.
Come on baby, why do you have to be so angry? Why can’t you just smile and go with the flow than being so pissy?
Antigone: check out Quentin’s Q. It’s so cute when he gets angry, hey?
Lust is not inheirantly objectifying. That, is not turning a woman into an object. Making them feel like they have no purpose beyond YOUR sexual gratification, that is making them feel like an object.
The problem is that one cannot really make another person feel like an object. That alleged feeling of being objectified is a response to the behavior you dislike, but you don’t have to feel that way. It’s a double standard because you are seeking to hold men accountable for women’s reactions.
Context is important: if you are in a relationship, a little lustful gazing can be quite nice. If I don’t know you from Adam, and you don’t know me from Eve, ogling me is objectifying. It means you don’t care enough about me as a person, I’m just a prop in your fantasy.
How you choose to react is your choice and your responsibility. It works both ways.
Context is important with other types of relationships as well. That means professional relationships as well: it doesn’t matter what I wear, you should be able to control your fantasy when there’s work to be done. Woman must do the same thing with men as well.
And it doesn’t matter how I look at you, you should be able to control your emotional reactions to a degree that it does not affect negatively your work performance or my work performance. Further, don’t go complaining to the HR people that you don’t like the way I look at you. You’re responsible for your emotional responses, I am not.
And feminists do not treat women as children. What a stupid thing to say, especially considering many feminists are *gasp* woman. (We treat ourselves like children? What?)
You do treat yourselves like children because you don’t want to take responsibility for your reactions. You expect to hold men responsible for them.
Pointing out that your reaction to OUR bodies is objectifying IS being responsible for our own reaction. I don’t deserve to be catcalled, at, groped, or yelled at. I especially don’t deserve to raped because of wearing “inappropriate” attire. What you are basically saying is these are okay social punishments for acting outside of the accepted norm, and I do not agree with that. Why don’t you try having some responsibility for YOUR reaction.
Reread what I wrote earlier, since you obviously are so full of feminist dogma that you can’t see much of anything but your own paranoid projections onto the world. I was talking about looking. All your other bluster is just a set of straw men, falling over in the summer breeze.
Come on baby, why do you have to be so angry? Why can’t you just smile and go with the flow than being so pissy?
Are you talking to yourself? While you’re at it, you can tell yourself to take responsibility for your feelings and not try to foist that liability onto men. If you want to be treated like adults, act like adults.
Mr. Bad, I am tempted to stare when someone is dressed badly too– whether it is tight clothing or the guy who came to my wedding in shorts and a t-shirt. But I don’t stare because it’s rude to do so. So when you stare, whether it’s out of lust or stunned disbelief that someone is dressing so badly, you’re being a rude jerk. The other person’s clothing choices don’t get you off the hook.
Your argument that men should be allowed to pee by the side of the road is interesting — but why do I think that if we allowed it, there would be a double standard by which it would acceptable for men but not for women? Besides, peeing, unlike breastfeeding, leaves behind smelly waste product. That’s the real problem with it not the exposure of sex organs.
And again Mr. Bad starts up with that insipid “dream on girl, whatever makes you feel better” business. Those of us who don’t fit societal standards of attractiveness and still get stared at know quite well that staring isn’t about lust. It’s about women’s bodies being considered public property.
Whatever the motivation, staring is rude. It is aggression and pretty much universally recognized as such among primates. Directing aggression at women whose outfits you consider ugly is bullying, plain and simple. This is something that Mr. Bad — and it’s obvious, by the language he uses — knows very well. He’s pretty upfront about using staring as a “punish the ugly slut” tool — if you as a woman dress in clothing he deems too tight for your body shape, he will use aggression to intimidate you. Every time he weighs in on this topic, that much is crystal clear.
But nature is also roughly half the equation of human behaviour
Which means that the other half is free will and socialization. Get over that.
The ‘nature’ excuse is just that–an excuse. “Nature” also prepares us to run around in the nude, crap in the bushes at the park, and die in childbirth. I don’t think any of Hugo’s buddies would give an enthusiastic rah-rah to any of those things.
Hugo, have you pointed out to these buddies that the ‘nature’ they believe in also ‘hardwires’ women to cheat on them, have another man’s baby and pretend it’s theirs, and select mates based on income? Are they as supportive of those choices as they are of their ‘hardwired’ need to ogle?
Oh yeah Arwen. That little Q…so sleek and sexy yet round and playful. Mmm, I’d like to sink my teeth into that. It’s so cute they way he babbles on and on, whatever, the more times he posts, the more times I get to see that sexy little handle.
“But somehow, I’m annoyed at men’s usage of the ‘just can’t help myself’ excuse.”
So am I, and I’m a dude.
“Look at the Q on you. It’s hot.”
Hmmm…
Qoy Qenteel
Mr. Bad -
Breastfeeding has nothing to do with a woman’s “right to expose her chest.” It has to do with a baby’s right to eat, and to do so in a place more sanitary than a bathroom. Please, drop that old, tired (and inaccurate) comparison.
THF wrote: “Besides, peeing, unlike breastfeeding, leaves behind smelly waste product.”
So, you think that people shouldn’t be able to let their dogs pee outside too then, right? Or do you consider men less worthy than dogs?
As for smelly, babies stink all the time, regardless of whether they’re feeding or not. So should I be able to tell you that you shouldn’t be able to take your kid out in public because it stinks?
Allison, if it’s a matter of baby eating, then there are plenty of places in private that you can take your kid to breastfeed, and probably the vast majority are more sanitary and thus much safer and healthy than a park bench or other public space where people regularly put their hands, sneeze, etc. So please drop that old, tired argument.
I don’t know, Mr. Bad. I lived in Africa in a place where peeing on the city streets was acceptable and I can tell you the smell of urine was at times overwhelming. Anyone who has lived in NYC can tell you the same thing. Maybe I am wrong, but it doesn’t seem as though dogs cause quite the same problem, perhaps because there aren’t as many of them out and about on the city streets.
But be that as it may, it seems that you would advocate a double standard. (Do you consider men less worthy than dogs?) I strongly suspect that if peeing on the street were legalized, it would be considered appropriate for men only.
Hugo said:
What pro-feminists deny is that women are somehow responsible for male arousal.
Of course women are causally responsible for male arousal. They are also morally responsible for male arousal, if they intentionally dress in a way that they are aware will be arousing to men (though this means that I think women are not morally responsible for arousing men if they are deliberately dressing down). Yet as you point out, women are neither causally nor morally responsible for male reactions to how they dress, and desire is not a justification for action.
A girl in a mini-skirt is no more responsible for her classmate’s lust than the barista at Starbucks is for my full bladder! I have as much control over where my eyes linger as I do over what I choose to drink; whatever physiological reactions I experience as the result of either activity (drinking coffee, ogling) are my responsibility and mine alone.
The difference is that you choose to go to Starbucks. Since the barista isn’t forcing you to drink, you are of course morally responsible for your full bladder. The male classmate of the girl in the mini-skirt has no choice but to be aroused, so it’s impossible for him to be morally responsible for his arousal. That is why many males experience females dressing in a sexualizing manner as psychologically intrusive. Can males suppress their arousal? To a large degree, yes. Still, this takes energy that could be better spent on other things (like work).
The cultural variation over specifically what level of female exposure is considered sexual doesn’t mean that males can easily change what they are turned on by. The fact that males in another culture (who have received years of very different types of conditioning) may not be aroused by a certain stimulus, like bare breasts, doesn’t mean that males in this culture can wake up one day and decide to not be turned on by bare breasts anymore.
Erin C. said:
Whatever the motivation, staring is rude. It is aggression and pretty much universally recognized as such among primates.
So you are saying that women have a hardwired response to staring from males? Interesting (and correct, although this response is moderated by culture). I think Mr. Bad’s argument is “so what: it’s your responsibility to deal with any feelings of discomfort you get from men staring at you.” He is not advocating bullying women, because he is claiming that staring is not a form of bullying unless women insist on perceiving it that way.
I am not sure I completely agree with him and Quentin: if a man deliberately stares (for more than an amount that is considered acceptable in their culture) at a woman, he is morally responsible for any discomfort she feels (because, as you imply, she will often have a semi-hardwired feeling of discomfort). Although there is cultural variation in how women respond to male stares, they cannot just decide to not feel uncomfortable about them.
Still, I think the argument that Mr. Bad and Quentin made above is simply the reverse of the argument that women aren’t responsible for arousing men. Just as men are responsible for any feelings of discomfort in women they deliberately stare at in a manner that is more aggressive than the cultural norm, women are responsible for feelings of arousal and discomfort in men that they cause by deliberately dressing in a manner that the culture defines as sexual.
If men staring at women is considered inappropriate because it makes women feel uncomfortable, they why shouldn’t women dressing in a sexual manner be considered inappropriate in contexts where it makes men feel uncomfortable? How can we say that one gender’s feeling of discomfort are more valid than the other’s?
(For ideological feminists, of course, the answer is obvious: women’s feelings are always more important than men’s.)
Perplexed said: “But Hugo, you’re starting to sound like a social engineer now, Marxist even.”
I confess to being a bit perplexed myself by this derogatory use of the term ’social engineer.’ Of course societies have been engineered to work in certain ways. In fact, I’m certain if you think about it a bit more, you’ll find that much of what you call ‘nature’ is simply antique engineering. (If Hugo decides to channel his inner medievalist, he can give you about 7 books-worth of examples of this engineering that reads as ‘nature’now. And these merely from the past 1500 years or so.) We weren’t born as a race into a habit of binary thinking, for example; that had to be created and nurtured over millenia.
Aegis, women are not morally responsible for male arousal. Not at all. Think about this practically for a moment. How many different sorts of sexual quirks do we all have? For instance, let’s imagine that I’m attracted to men who are slightly chubby. Does that mean that every time a man eats a brownie he’s morally responsible for the lascivious thoughts I’ll be having about using his body for a nice, soft pillow? No. I’m responsible for having and entertaining those thoughts, and I’m responsible for any action I take based on them.
The paradigm you suggest would place women in the untenable position of having to anticipate EVERY fantasy ANY man could come up with about her, and then dress and behave in ways which would eliminate any chance of male arousal. So, if a woman were in a room with a man who inordinately lusted after shy women and one who inordinately lusted after outspoken women there would be absolutely NO WAY for her to avoid arousing one of them. Should anybody have to use their intellectual and emotional energy this way? I mean, seriously, some of us have stuff to do. Isn’t the moral onus on the individual with the uncontrollable lust?
One more thing. We’ve had an awful lot of comments about “dressing appropriately.” But absolutely nobody has defined what is “appropriate.” Appropriate for the weather? Then how, precisely, is slight clothing inappropriate for southern California in the spring and summer? Appropriate for the classroom? I’ve had students show up to class in pajamas, workout gear, giant snowsuits, torn denim, nasty unwashed fraternity pledge outfits … you name it. I even had one kid show up in an ascot and a driving cap, tapping at his pipe. (He was not yet 20, and this was not long ago.) So, before we can discuss “appropriate attire,” I think we need to come to some sort of consensus as to what that means.
THF said: “But be that as it may, it seems that you would advocate a double standard. (Do you consider men less worthy than dogs?) I strongly suspect that if peeing on the street were legalized, it would be considered appropriate for men only.”
Happy, yours is a strawman argument - I never said anything about peeing in the street. I said that men should able to discretely pee on “bushes and trees,” specifically implying that I advocate 1) shielding my cock appropriately so as not to deliberately expose myself, and 2) peeing on porous and/or absorbent substrate. I’m not advocating peeing in the street, even if much of the rest of the world does so. What feminists do when they advocate for breastfeeding in public - with no responsibility of the woman to exercise any discretionary modesty whatsoever - while objecting to men being able to pee in the park while exercising appropriate modesty is the double standard.
Heo, you are also engaging in strawman arguments by taking examples of the extreme as if they are the norm.
As I said before, what we seem to be disagreeing about is the definition of “appropriate.” I recognize that certain kinds of stares are inappropriate, and perhaps even “aggressive,” but to suggest that they are equivalent to some sort of assault is IMO patronizing. Such things might be aggressive to some people, but if we allow ourselves to be traumatized by simply a look or stare then to me suggests that the ‘traumatized’ person is not particularly strong. I’ve been stared at aggressively on the subway, etc., by street people, and I simply look away and ignore them. I am more in control than an animal and thus choose to behave apppropriately, like a well-adjusted human being who is not devastated or even “bullied” or feeling “punished” by something as minor as a look or stare; by the same token, I don’t act-on on lust like animals do. One choses to either act like an adult who is control of themselves or not do so and thus be viewed as childish. It’s being responsible for myself. End of story.
Feminists seem to want to be able to define “appropriate” for dress, looking, etc., at whatever point suits their purposes, and I suppose they have the right to do so. However, I also have the right to not take them seriously if I believe they are acting in a capricious and childish manner.
I said that men should able to discretely pee on “bushes and trees,”
Said like a man who lives in a high-rise. And I suppose you think women have no biological need to pee?
deliberately dressing in a manner that the culture defines as sexual
There is virtually no female clothing that does not carry a sexual message, even if it’s “I am downplaying my sexuality”.
mythago said:
Said like a man who lives in a high-rise. And I suppose you think women have no biological need to pee?
Nope, they don’t. Seriously, where has Mr. Bad said anything to imply that he wouldn’t support women peeing in public also?
There is virtually no female clothing that does not carry a sexual message, even if it’s “I am downplaying my sexuality”.
If you define “sexual message” so broadly as to include the message of “I am downplaying my sexuality,” then yes. In a trivial sense, all clothing does say something about the sexuality of their wearer. Still, wouldn’t you agree that some types of female clothing carry different types, and different degrees of sexual messages? If you say that this outfit conveys a sexual message, then I believe you (though I’m not seeing it myself!), but I think you will agree that the message is both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the sexual message that an outfit like this one conveys.
I know this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I just had to tell you: I’m interested to hear your response to the article in the LA Times today titled, “Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins” by Charlotte Allen. I couldn’t help but think of what you’d say while reading it.
Heh. Myth, I’ve never lived in a high-rise. As the saying goes, I’m a hand-spanked country boy - born, raised, and still living in the sticks. However, apparently you’re a city girl, else you’d know about peeing on bushes and trees, i.e., treetrunks, which are very good for hiding behind when peeing. Also keeps people from stepping in pee, assuming that they’re smart and/or sober enough not to walk into bushes and tree trunks.
And as Aegis suspects, I do believe that women should be able to pee in the bushes as long as they can be appropriately discreet about it; my wife does it all the time when we’re out on hikes, etc.
Fine, Mr. Bad, you win. You can pee in the bushes with my blessing– as long as you let me and Mythago do the same and breastfeed in public if we so choose. (Aegis, Mr. Bad’s support of equal opportunity peeing was far from clear since he said, “ I said that men should able to discretely pee on “bushes and trees” and “Or do you consider men less worthy than dogs?“)
I still think you’re being a rude jerk if you stare at people who make clothing choices of which you disapprove.
Aegis: “If you say that this outfit conveys a sexual message, then I believe you (though I’m not seeing it myself!), but I think you will agree that the message is both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the sexual message that an outfit like this one conveys.”
I don’t think it’s so much the outfit the older woman was wearing that isn’t sexual, it’s the person. Find me a picture of a young attractive shapely woman wearing clothes that no one could construe as saying “do me now.”
I will readily concede that a woman can wear clothes that quite obviously say “I want you to think I’m sexy,” such as the picture you linked. Such dress is often inappropriate, and/or rude. The other end of the spectrum, however, is not as clear. Consider the plight of a large chested woman who simply cannot find clothes that are not tight across her chest. Her options are to wear a potato sack, or have a shirt that is a little tight across her chest. A common complaint of large chested women is that they are treated as though they are trying to be provocative when their clothing choice indicates nothing of the sort. In their case the shape of their body prevents their clothing choices from changing whether or not their dress is ’safe.’
My main point is, simply being good looking, having a pretty face, being athletic, having a particular body shape, or whatever can be enough for someone (even someone who would be considered reasonable) to think you are sexy, even sexy enough to be distracting, no matter what you wear. I had a man honestly tell me that I would be sexy in a wholesome frock. So, yes, it isn’t always a person’s fault if someone else’s clothing is distracting to them, but in our society a woman cannot be guaranteed to not distract simply by dressing appropriately. I think it is those who insist on being distracted by an otherwise appropriately dressed woman that we are discussing.
else you’d know about peeing on bushes and trees
Having lived in the city and had bushes and trees that people apparently felt was God’s designated site for their dogs to piss in, believe me, I know about peeing on bushes and trees.
What you’re deliberately conflating is a) penis exposure and b) leaving urine behind. If the discreet public urination were into a sanitary receptacle, nobody would care; the issue isn’t that somebody might see your penis, it’s that you’re depositing piss. Breastfeeding mothers who squirted puddles of milk all over park benches or bus seats would be your analogy here, and I don’t think anyone would support their right to subject other people to their bodily fluids.
Interesting dissusion.
What it has got me thinking is that does it make a difference if the recipient of the look finds the looker attractive?
As at times I feel that some individuals dress to attract but then get offended that those they attract are not what they want!
Also what consitutes a stare? when does a look become a stare? how much longer is a stare to a look?
We also need to take into account, that the dating game, for all the changes we have had in our society, still relies on men making the first move the majority of times (I am sure that there are some enlightend women here that take the first move, but they are still not the norm) What this means is that men may stare more at women, they need to try and get eye contact, or attract their attention, to see if it is worth taking the risk of rejection (a fear that a lot of men have to deal with on a regular occasion) They need to get those passive signals that women make to part of the way inform the guy that she may be receptive to his apporaches. And some guys are just usless at this (due to anxiety, low self-esteem, lack of practice or just dicks) and can make a mess of it.
It would be great if we live in a world with no body making judgements about us based on how we dress, but I am afraid that is not the case. We all have to think about the message we send out in how we dress. If I turn up to work in my baggy jeans and T-shirt my work will suffer as client will not take me as seriously and I will lose buisness, that is my fault not the clients. The same goes if you dress to impress and to atract the attentions of the opporsite sex, you cannot complain when you attract those who you are not atractted too, as clothing is not a presice weapon it is more a scatter gun.
It goes without saying that what I have writtern has not included such things as shouting out offensive things or bullying individuals through imtimidation. All individuals within society need to know where these boundries are and that this type of behavour is not appropriate.
The problem comes with trying to set where these boundries are, ensuring that we do not make it too subjective (ie it offends me, so therefore it is offensive.
This kind of relates to the discussion. I read once on a feminist comments board that if a man walking home at night finds himself walking behind a women, he should cross the street so that she is not scared.
This is like the whole looking discussion, we are imposing the responciblity onto men to be protective of female senciblities and fears, this too me is like treating women as children not as fall fledged adults.
Earth to myth, reality check time: We’re not talking about pissing downtown, we’re talking about Hugo and other men (or women) running on mountain trails and/or in parks. Big difference, or least for reasonable people. YMMV.
And yes, I’m afraid it is about exposing breasts and penises. As I said, urine is sterile so there’s nothing inherently pathologic about it, any more than breast milk. Once it soaks into the ground - a matter of minutes, or seconds in porous soil - it’s gone.
THF said: “I still think you’re being a rude jerk if you stare at people who make clothing choices of which you disapprove.”
I agree, which is why I don’t stare at people. That said, some women are walking around with huge chips on their shoulders just looking for an excuse to get pissed off and go off on a man (e.g., the “Code Blue” chicks in NYC) even though he hasn’t actually “stared” at anybody or otherwise done anything ‘wrong.’ In those cases, like the guy who deliberately stares, they’re just being assholes.
Men certainly don’t hold a monopoly on rudeness in these situations.
Wookie said: ”
This kind of relates to the discussion. I read once on a feminist comments board that if a man walking home at night finds himself walking behind a women, he should cross the street so that she is not scared.
This is like the whole looking discussion, we are imposing the responciblity onto men to be protective of female senciblities and fears, this too me is like treating women as children not as fall fledged adults.”
Wookie, I’ve also heard this suggested for men who find themselves alone in an elevator with a woman. I don’t see it as so much insulting to women as it is to men.
I know you’re British so let me explain something abouut U.S. history: In the southern part of the U.S. during a period in our history where we had what were called “Jim Crow” laws, African Americans were required to step off of the sidewalk and into the street (usually muddy, soiled with horse manure, etc.) when a white person - especially a white woman - was on the same sidewalk. During that time period African Americans were viewed as not fully human, i.e., animalistic and thus, dirty and not in control of themselves. What the feminists you read were suggesting is a new type of Jim Crow, except this time it’s men who are considered not fully human and thus not in control of emotions like lust, etc., and therefore untrustworthy. This attitude is what I like to refer to as “Jane Crow.” Such thinking is antithetical to civilized and decent society and thus should be rejected by one and all.
Oh, c’mon, Mr. Bad, the coy act does not suit you. You didn’t start off the discussion talking about peeing in the woods–you challenged Hugo about peeing while on one of his 3-mile runs which don’t take place in Yellowstone Park, as far as I can tell. A mountain trail is not a public park, and–can you believe it?–there are parks in urban areas. And, of course, we were talking about women breastfeeding in public, not along mountain trails or in secluded parks. SO perhaps we could stick to a fact pattern instead of constantly changing it and then getting indignant?
I don’t think you’d especially appreciate stepping in somebody else’s pee, and I can assure you from experience that you wouldn’t want to live near a bushy area that was constantly used as a public restroom, whether or not you ever saw any of the ’sterile’ deposits made on the ground, the bushes, the nearby sidewalk, etc. And, again: breastfeeding doesn’t involve spraying bodily fluids around, sterile or otherwise.
If you’re going to whine about the anti-male oppressors who won’t let you piss in public, it may comfort you to know that I’m not legally allowed to drop trou and piss in an alleyway, either.
For the record, every trail runner I know of either sex sooner or later must pee in the woods. You can’t be out in the backcountry for six hours and not do so; it simply isn’t possible.
Now, anyone who has ever seen a big-city marathon has also seen folks of both sexes peeing on sidewalks. I’ve had to pee in public in eight or nine of the dozen or so marathons I’ve done.
But let’s not let my analogy to urination drown the rest of the discussion.
If it were natural, and men truly couldn’t help objectifying women, instead of it being the social control that it is, we would be castrating males at age 13, just like our dogs and cattle.
In reality, women’s bodies are biologically wired in such a way that tells us that finding men that can and will mate successfully with them is a rather long shot — otherwise we wouldn’t need monthly menstruation. The fact that most of us are fertile once a month - and not getting pregnant non-stop — lets us know that men are *not* hardwired for sex and sexual attraction in the way that Playboy and Swank want us to believe.
*That* sexuality is socialized and used to dominate women.
I am glad that you don’t stare at people after all, Mr. Bad, but I have to agree with Mythago that you are changing the terms of the discussion. I was responding to your statement above that:
Sure, women should be able to dress in ’sausage suits,’ expose their breasts in public, etc., but if/when they do I’m going to stare, whether they like it not.
I hope that you have really changed your mind, rather than merely trying to bob and weave your way through this discussion.
And as for you Hugo: But let’s not let my analogy to urination drown the rest of the discussion. Heh heh. That’s just terrible.
mythago said: “Oh, c’mon, Mr. Bad, the coy act does not suit you. You didn’t start off the discussion talking about peeing in the woods–you challenged Hugo about peeing while on one of his 3-mile runs which don’t take place in Yellowstone Park, as far as I can tell.”
myth, are you be deliberately dishonest or are you really so clueless?
Hugo’s first paragraph was: “It’s blazingly hot. After several weeks of light exercise as I coped with grief over Matilde and my father, I’m easing back into regular working out. I’ve boxed and Pilate-ed today, and am ready for a long, steamy run up some local mountain tomorrow morning.”
Running up a local mountain. Not downtown, or as far as I know even in the city. Get it? He’s written about his runs plenty of times, so I know you know what he’s talking about.
The first paragraph (one sentence) in my first post was: “Ok Hugo, sit down: I happen to agree with you on this (except for your comment that our culture “hold(s) women accountable and lets men off scot-free” - that’s absurd and you should know it).”
Now if that sounds like disagreement to you then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
You know an argument is in trouble when the person making has to resort to flat-out lying in order to support it. Give it up myth.
Point taken THF - I could have been more clear.
What I meant was that it’s cool with me if a woman wants to wear a sausage outfit - hey, knock yourself out. But if she does I’m going to look and probably do a double-take. I won’t stare as I define it, but depending on how (overly) sensitive to such things she is, she might consider it staring. And frankly, IMO that’s her problem, not mine.
Better?
So, another words, Mr. Bad if you stare at someone, and make them feel uncomfortable, as long as YOU think it’s not staring, than no harm no foul right? Everybody should just “Get over” their “sensitivity” and flex to your standards, because otherwise we are treating you just as poorly as the blacks did under the Jim Crow laws (although I haven’t heard anybody mention anything about legislation, just social actions).
And I reading you correctly? If so, your acting like an ass.
I will take your word for it that you don’t stare or leer, Mr. Bad.
But I don’t agree that the woman who believes she has been leered at is obliged to keep her sensitivities to herself. Don’t forget that women are often held accountable for failing to stop sexually inappropriate behavior before it escalates. If a woman claims rape or sexual harassment, she is often doubted if she failed to complain about prior inappropriate comments, leering, inappropriate touching etc. The refrain in favor of the defense is often, “Well, if she didn’t want me to tell dirty jokes, or leer at her, or grope her, why didn’t she SAY so sooner?”
I will grant you that a look can be ambiguous. I may mistakenly think you are leering when you have no intent to leer or cause me discomfort. But you’re not gonna be arrested or fired based on looking at someone wrong the way. The worst that will happen is that a woman will tell you that you made her uncomfortable. She may be mistaken about your intent. She may not be kind in the way she says it. But there may also be solid reasons in terms of her safety and (if this happens in the workplace) her job security to be upfront with you about what she considers to be inappropriate conduct.
And if she lets you know something is bothering her, and it’s easy for you to stop doing it, then the situation gets defused, and no one gets hurt. I posted my own personal experiences with this phenomenon here: http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/07/on_ambiguity_an.html
THF said: “But I don’t agree that the woman who believes she has been leered at is obliged to keep her sensitivities to herself.”
I personally believe that many women misinterpret looks from men, so that’s what I mean when I say that women need to take some responsibility for their feelings re. ‘leering.’ I’ve never met a person - man or woman - who can read minds, so IMO it’s serious hubris to just know that another person is lusting after you if they’re simply gazing at you. I’ve discussed this before, so I won’t go into it in this thread.
THF also said: “The worst that will happen is that a woman will tell you that you made her uncomfortable.”
And if she does this in a respectful manner I’ll be quick to apologize to her and not ’stare’ at her. However, if she’s walking around with a chip on her shoulder looking to be offended and possibly looking for a fight (like the “Code Blue” chicks in NYC) and gets in my face about it, I’ll definitely respond differently.
Aegis,
The male classmate of the girl in the mini-skirt has no choice but to be aroused, so it’s impossible for him to be morally responsible for his arousal.
It doesn’t matter if he is aroused. What matters is what he does about it. Blood flow to the pelvic region does not automatically cause movement of the eye muscles. The former is not under conscious control, the latter is.
Actually, Hugo, I think wearing “sausage casing” clothing and ogling are about on the same level. They’re like call-and-response. It’s hypocritical for women to flaunt themselves to provoke attention and then challenge men to pretend not to notice. There are degrees of provocation: some short skirts are merely attention-getting, while some skin-tight clothing could actually be considered rude. To my mind, the problem is when the response is disproportionate. Wearing “sausage casing” clothing and rough harassment, assault, or rape are NOT on the same level.
Flamethorn said:
It doesn’t matter if he is aroused. What matters is what he does about it. Blood flow to the pelvic region does not automatically cause movement of the eye muscles. The former is not under conscious control, the latter is.
It does matter if he is aroused, because the degree to which males are responsible for their arousal is one of the subjects under debate in this thread. I don’t dispute that males can try to inhibit their arousal; to quote what I said in a previous post: “Can males suppress their arousal? To a large degree, yes. Still, this takes energy that could be better spent on other things (like work).”
Personally, I don’t mind women dressing in sexy ways, even in environments where I am trying to concentrate. I have pretty strong concentration. Still, I realize that not all males are like me, and it would be unreasonable for me to expect them to be like me.
“But let’s not let my analogy to urination drown the rest of the discussion.”
That’s quite a visual.
Still, I realize that not all males are like me, and it would be unreasonable for me to expect them to be like me.
Why? I think men in suits are hot, but no one would suggest the men in my law firm are responsible for any gawking, wolf-whistling, or sweet cheeks calling I might do. It’s completely reasonable for people to expect me to keep my desires for a romp on top of the copier to myself. Why is it unreasonable to ask men to do the same? Keep your comments to yourself, don’t make a scene, and save the fantasy for later. What’s the problem?
Keep your comments to yourself, don’t make a scene, and save the fantasy for later. What’s the problem?
Well, the thing is, if men don’t loudly call attention to their arousal, it might go unnoticed.
I mean, if a pretty girl in tight clothes walks by, and she turns you on, and you just sit there being quietly turned on like a normal person, she won’t know about your erection. Think how tragic that would be.
I’ve discussed this before, so I won’t go into it in this thread.
Going into it in this thread, and then announcing you’re not going into it to try and stifle discussion?
The problem is that women have a choice between what you label ‘hubris’ and stupidity. If that guy is leering at you, you figure “nah, I shouldn’t flatter myself” and then he comes on to you in a rude fashion, well, hey, it’s your fault for not having noticed he was leering in the first place. We can’t win, but that’s what makes the game fun for you, eh?
You know an argument is in trouble when the person making has to resort to flat-out lying in order to support it.
That’s funny–I would think an argument is in trouble where the person who made it stops even pretending it has substance, and starts accusing everyone who disagrees with him of lying.
I confess to being a bit perplexed myself by this derogatory use of the term ’social engineer.’ Of course societies have been engineered to work in certain ways. In fact, I’m certain if you think about it a bit more, you’ll find that much of what you call ‘nature’ is simply antique engineering. (If Hugo decides to channel his inner medievalist, he can give you about 7 books-worth of examples of this engineering that reads as ‘nature’now. And these merely from the past 1500 years or so.) We weren’t born as a race into a habit of binary thinking, for example; that had to be created and nurtured over millenia.
So a heterosexual man’s instinctive horomonal response is somehow socially engineered is it? Nature isn’t an excuse, it’s an explanation.
Heo Cwaeth, you’re on thin ice here - next you’ll be saying homosexuality is a socially engineered sexual preference. Next time you here about a female murderer who was suffering from post-natal depression, I’m guessing you’ll be saying that ISN’T mitigating circumstances right? Choose the syampthetic answer to that question and your double-standard is lit up in neon.
Play this game. You can take 3 paths. Only one of them leads you to the truth:
1. The Marxist path where we’re all made from dough and can be 100% molded.
2. The deterministic path where our nature determines all our behavioural traits - wheeeeee - we’re not responsible anymore!
3. The nature/nurture path where our environment AND our nature ultimately shapes who we are.
I think you’re a few kilos down path 1.
One more thing. We’ve had an awful lot of comments about “dressing appropriately.” But absolutely nobody has defined what is “appropriate.” Appropriate for the weather? Then how, precisely, is slight clothing inappropriate for southern California in the spring and summer? Appropriate for the classroom? I’ve had students show up to class in pajamas, workout gear, giant snowsuits, torn denim, nasty unwashed fraternity pledge outfits … you name it. I even had one kid show up in an ascot and a driving cap, tapping at his pipe. (He was not yet 20, and this was not long ago.) So, before we can discuss “appropriate attire,” I think we need to come to some sort of consensus as to what that means.
The word ’sociopath’ describes someone who is incapable of empathising without others’ feelings. I say that we (men and women) are responsible for the distress in others if we provoke it (this is where I disagree with some guys upthread) - whether it is sexy, revealing clothing being worn at an inappropriate time (like work, where it’s not conducive to work or a general congenial atmosphere), or staring at someone. Clothing that is distracting when people are concentrating (such as education or work) should not be allowed. It is up to individual establishments to judge what is and what isn’t distracting. By bearing this responsibility, we actually learn to co-exist in the same room/class/office a lot better rather than live in our own little bubbles and damn everyone else.
perplexed, I was with you right up until you said: “Clothing that is distracting when people are concentrating (such as education or work) should not be allowed.”
Here’s where we part ways - I believe that clothing of any type should not be banned per se because we all should be given the benefit of the doubt that we are responsible enough to be able to choose appropriate clothing for a given situation. However, if someone insists on wearing inappropriate clothing for given settings then IMO they have proven that they don’t exercise good judgement and thus open themselves up to disciplinary action, dismissal, and certainly a stare (in disbelief) or two.
myth, the only person I’ve accused of lying is you because frankly you did so. Further, the reason I’m not going to go into detail re. my thoughts on women’s ‘mind reading’ abilities vis-a-vis men ’staring’ is because 1) I’ve already done so in other threads here, and 2) due to respect for Hugo’s wishes to keep these threads on-topic. If you care to read the archives then by all means do so, and if you disagree with Hugo re. thread drift, take it up with him, not me.
evil_fizz said:
Why? I think men in suits are hot, but no one would suggest the men in my law firm are responsible for any gawking, wolf-whistling, or sweet cheeks calling I might do. It’s completely reasonable for people to expect me to keep my desires for a romp on top of the copier to myself. Why is it unreasonable to ask men to do the same?
In my posts above, I said very clearly that “women are neither causally nor morally responsible for male reactions to how they dress, and desire is not a justification for action.” So I would say that I would say that you responsible for your reactions to men wearing suits. What I am saying is that nobody is morally responsible for any feelings of arousal they have that they cannot control. They are, of course, responsible for the actions they take based on those feelings. When I said that it’s unreasonable for me to expect other men to be like me, I meant that it is unreasonable to expect them to be comfortable with getting aroused in situations when they are trying to focus; I do not think it’s unreasonable to expect other men to control their reactions to their arousal.
I think part of the confusion here is that “responsibility” is used in at least a couple different ways:
1. X is “responsible” for Y if X caused Y and can be held accountable for doing so.
2. X is “responsible” for Y if X has a duty to deal with Y.
When I say “men are not morally responsible for their arousal,” I am using the first meaning of the word “responsible” not the second.
Why is this such difficult work, anyway? By the time your three years old, you have (or shoud have) already been taught it’s impolite to stare. My boyfriend and I have had perfectly non-sexual conversations when both of us are butt-ass naked. My doctor doesn’t see to have a problem maintaining a professional attitude or concentration during a pap exam or a breast exam. I’ve babysat children who went flying around naked except for underware on their head and not batted an eye. I’ve worked in envirnments with extrodinarily sexy guys in extrodinarily sexy uniforms (pretty much the only thing I like about the military) without staring or making them uncomfortable.
So why is it that the average guy is SO OVERCOMING with the sight of me in a tank-top that he cannot HELP but stare? Where’s the effort?
Funny, I think a young woman in a hijab looks quite sexy. Beautiful woman make the world go round! But let’s get a few things straight.
1. Many women view ogling as intimidating;
2. Staring at women reduces them to objects, instead of people;
3. Trying to make out women who look sexy are responsible for amoral or immoral behaviour is, frankly, pathetic.
I look out the corner of my eye, sure, and I’m pleased God made beautiful women. But it doesn’t make me treat ladies different - okay, I might smile a bit more at the pretty ones! But all this chasing skirt. It’s based on a delusion.
The delusion is that casual sex ‘for fun’ makes it worth being a lieing, manipulating, one-track minded jerk. It doesn’t. Be a nice person, fall in love, and you’ll find the Earth really DOES move!
Wasalaam
The Muslim Anarchist
Thanks for this!
Mr. Bad, actually I’m not engaging in strawman arguments at all. The premise being put forth by some is that when men lust after women, it’s because women have failed to anticipate that lust and dress to prevent it. A peak at undergarments, or clothing that accentuates the female shape is considered responsible for this male lust, while the men actively lusting are merely hapless victims of uncontrolled female flesh. That seems rather silly to me, and I’m surprised it doesn’t seem silly to you. Surely you know men who like the “innocent look” of a librarian or hmmm…what would be an equally odd, and not at all overtly sexual choice?…a uniformed schoolgirl, perhaps? So if fully covered women and girls can set off the lust factor in certain men, what exactly are women and girls meant to do in order to properly control MEN’S BEHAVIOR?
Let’s put it this way; for the past ten years or so a certain number of nubile young men have worn their pants with the waist set BELOW their gluteal folds, exposing their entire buttocks and almost the entirety of their underwear to public view. Hugo has himself said that he runs topless. Many athletic men do. And yet I refrain from harassing the topless and nearly bottomless men I see every day. If exposed underwear or pectoral muscles were in and of themselves provocation to behave poorly, I’d have an excuse for any repulsive conduct I chose to exhibit. Yet I do not exhibit these behaviors. I take responsibility for my own actions, and monitor my behavior so that I treat fellow humans with basic respect. This is not at all difficult, because I actually respect most fellow humans. If an exposed female thigh makes you incapable of functioning like a reasonable person in the world, that’s a problem you need to deal with. You might start by reciting “people are not life support for genitals” to yourself.
Perplexed, I’m not on any ice whatsoever. It’s July. All people have lust, that’s nature. What inspires the lustful imagination changes slightly from person to person and to a greater extent from culture to culture, that’s nurture, and it has been constructed. The entitlement some feel to shame or blame women or girls for their own renegade imaginations is a social construct.
What concerns me most about your response is your equation of standard lust with mental illness. To answer your question, any person who cannot help but harm or even kill themselves or others needs to be placed in an institution that will prevent them from doing so. Every person I know has lusted, and yet most of them refrain from making that lust some random stranger’s problem. Every parent I know has had to take a moment alone to calm down and prevent themselves from harming their children. In fact, most parents I know joke that children come in such completely adorable packages for survival purposes. As long as these people control themselves, they are completely normal, and on the right side of the law. When they stop controlling themselves, they become abnormal and dangerous. I may feel empathy for the criminal or criminally insane, but I don’t want to run into them in the produce section.
Unlike you, I have respect for men. I am not yet willing to consign men who chose to behave like poorly trained monkeys while blaming those around them for their behavior to institutions. I think perhaps we should spend a little more time explaining to men who assume that they have the right or duty to harass women that they are very much mistaken. After we’ve spent some time on that task, we can start talking about medications and/or locked wards.
Sociopaths can’t empathize because they tend to have severe narcissistic disorders. They don’t consider other people real or important. If we all were considering the needs of others, then dressing appropriately for the weather would be the norm, rather than a reason to cry havoc about some men’s need never to see a female thigh they aren’t allowed to touch.
Here’s where we part ways - I believe that clothing of any type should not be banned per se because we all should be given the benefit of the doubt that we are responsible enough to be able to choose appropriate clothing for a given situation. However, if someone insists on wearing inappropriate clothing for given settings then IMO they have proven that they don’t exercise good judgement and thus open themselves up to disciplinary action, dismissal, and certainly a stare (in disbelief) or two.
Actually, when it comes to work, I much prefer formally written dress codes indicating what sorts of things both men and women shouldn’t wear to a situation where nothing is banned per se, but my boss then gets to discipline me if my guess of the appropriate thing to wear turns out not to match his idea of good judgment. I do not want my boss to be expected to devote a lot of energy to thinking about whether I’m too seductive. But written codes telling me that I don’t get to wear short-shorts or miniskirts or bare my stomach at work? No problem. Any company can set reasonable standards for everyone who works there as to what it considers to be appropriate professional attire.
Lucia:
“Antigone,
What do you mean by turning someone into an object? If you are attracted to someone and you are interested in being with them, that is not turning them into an object is it? Is looking at them with lust turning them into an object? I don’t know, I’m not from this country so I do not unserstand American thinking. What is turning into an object?”
The reality of sexual objectification (seeing/treating someone as a piece of meat for lustful purposes) is not only observed by Americans, but throughout the world. So this isn’t just about “American thinking”, this is something that feminists and non-feminists throughout the world have been aware of since the beginnings of humanity.
Q Girl:
“If it were natural, and men truly couldn’t help objectifying women, instead of it being the social control that it is, we would be castrating males at age 13, just like our dogs and cattle.”
Oh my.
My first thought was that this is a parody, but just in case you really believe this, here I go…
If men did not naturally have powerful lust, they wouldn’t buy porn and use prostitutes. There wouldn’t be so many men in personal ads, chat rooms, bars, you name it, desperately trolling for sex. There is nothing unnatural about their lustful desires, unless you’re going to blame demons. They *feel* their lust on a visceral level; it’s real, it’s not imaginary or invented.
“we would be castrating males at age 13, just like our dogs and cattle” is an absurd non sequitur. It makes no sense whatsoever. First you argue that men’s lust is invented so that men can control women. Now you say that if this lust were natural, these same woman-controlling men would be castrating themselves and their sons. Why would men use their power to castrate their own sex en masse? Obvious answer: they wouldn’t.
“In reality, women’s bodies are biologically wired in such a way that tells us that finding men that can and will mate successfully with them is a rather long shot — otherwise we wouldn’t need monthly menstruation.”
LOL. What planet do you live on? Do you really believe it is difficult for the average woman to find male sexual partners? Not only is it extremely easy, but women can actually get *paid* for it. That’s why there are prostitutes and escorts and porn stars and golddiggers, and they’re overwhelmingly women getting paid by men.
“otherwise we wouldn’t need monthly menstruation”? Refuting this non sequitur is as easy as the first. In reality (shock!) TYPICAL WOMEN DON’T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH EVERY WILLING MAN IN RANGE. If they did, they’d be having sex virtually all the time. :D
Most women don’t want to mate with just any man who is available — they tend to be *much* choosier than that. If you haven’t noticed that, I have to reiterate my question with regard which planet you call home. And even the most promiscuous women often use birth control: there are lots of men willing to screw them, that’s why BC is useful in the first place.
“The fact that most of us are fertile once a month - and not getting pregnant non-stop — lets us know that men are *not* hardwired for sex and sexual attraction in the way that Playboy and Swank want us to believe.”
LOL. *shaking my head*
Once again, women are not getting pregnant nonstop because of 1) many women refusing to put out and successfully avoiding rape, 2) in the case of women who do put out, widespread birth control, and 3) in the case of women who put out and get knocked up, pregnancy precludes them from getting pregnant again for at least another nine months. Pregnant women still have no problem getting sex.
As for Playboy and Swank, if men didn’t have strong lustful urges with a powerful visual bent, they wouldn’t buy these magazines in the first place. Like prostitution, pornography caters to natural sex drive. If the drive were not natural, it wouldn’t be catered to in *every* society, including countless societies that are otherwise very different from one another.
“*That* sexuality is socialized and used to dominate women.”
So men “just happen” to lust after young and attractive females in every society? Just a coincidence, eh? Uh-huh. ;)
Don’t get me wrong; there are ways to bring improvements in how these drives are expressed, etc., but it would be blind to actually believe that these desires are artificial. Also, I will grant that sex and power share a great deal of essence, and overlap and interact in many interesting ways. But that hardly means men lusting for nubile women isn’t natural. The drive for power is as natural as the drive for sex.
Pretending that male horniness is just an illusion won’t make it go away. Men need highly effective outlets for their very real lusts, so that the rest of the time they will be able to think more clearly and act more prudently, especially in the presence of women. Unfortunately, such outlets are not well developed or implemented in our society. So, the same frustrated man who in a saner society could be satisfying his needs at a bordello is staring at my daughter’s butt instead. :(
Men need highly effective outlets for their very real lusts, so that the rest of the time they will be able to think more clearly and act more prudently, especially in the presence of women.
I assure you, Jen, that men are perfectly possible of controlling their arousal. I don’t underestimate the power of sexual desire; I’ve lived as a man for nearly forty years! But any man who says that his desire invariably trumps his judgment is either lying or unaware.
We can acknowledge the reality of male “horniness” (and the reality of female desire, which can be equally powerful) without justifying prostitution or objectification of your adolescent daughter.
Hugo:
“I assure you, Jen, that men are perfectly possible of controlling their arousal.”
I respectfully disagree. Generally speaking, you are mistaken.
Many western men can successful refrain from committing outright rape (at least in times of relative law and order), but that is under threat of getting themselves tossed into the rape pen. In various non-western societies where pornography and other outlets are less available to men, they have a poorer record of refraining from rape, even in relatively peaceful times.
However, even men who successfully refrain from rape *cannot* avoid getting aroused in the first place, nor can they avoid getting sexually frustrated. That is, unless they have access to sexual outlets such as prostitutes (pornography alone can partially ease their frustration, but too much of it with too little of the real deal can be problematic).
Sexual frustration, itself a painful problem, spawns a whole host of problems that get only worse with time. Not least among these is the increased likelihood to commit rape.
For the most part, I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church, but consider the results of their misguided abstinence policy. Priests may *think* they can successfully suppress their sexuality without any problems. Yet, the sexual scandal rocking the Church today shows this supposition to be dangerous wishful thinking.
Hugo:
“I don’t underestimate the power of sexual desire; I’ve lived as a man for nearly forty years! But any man who says that his desire invariably trumps his judgment is either lying or unaware.”
I pay more attention to actions. Some men claim that they can successfully suppress their lust, but it’s what they actually *do* that matters.
Hugo:
“We can acknowledge the reality of male “horniness” (and the reality of female desire, which can be equally powerful) without justifying prostitution or objectification of your adolescent daughter.”
If these frustrated men had legal and easy access to effective sexual outlets such as prostitutes, they wouldn’t *need* to objectify my adolescent daughter. Let prostitutes do their thing so that smarter and classier gals can be blessedly released from harassment by horndogs. :D
Good post Jen.
Heo Cwaeth, I didn’t understand your post, sorry - you seem to have completely misrepresented my posts, so not sure how to respond!
Let prostitutes do their thing so that smarter and classier gals can be blessedly released from harassment by horndogs.
Jen, since you’re sure that someone’s got to service men’s needs, why shouldn’t it be your daughter? I’d love to hear your explanation of why she’s too good for whoring, but other women aren’t. Prostitutes aren’t your servants, and they’re not public utilities. They’re human beings, and better ones than you.
Jen, you seem to be advocating for a female underclass that men can “Vent their lust on”. Pardon me while I squig the fuck out: it’s okay for woman to be disrespected and used as long as it’s not you or your daughter? WTF?
Many western men can successful refrain from committing outright rape (at least in times of relative law and order), but that is under threat of getting themselves tossed into the rape pen. In various non-western societies where pornography and other outlets are less available to men, they have a poorer record of refraining from rape, even in relatively peaceful times.
You have a very poor view of men, and really of humans in general. Men don’t commit rape because of fear of being punished? What kind of retarded thinking is that? What ever happened to men not committing rape because it’s wrong and a violation of another human being? And I think that you are mistaken, anyway. Look up non-western cultures: the laws on the books for raping are much stricter than they are here, and yet the rape is worse.
However, even men who successfully refrain from rape *cannot* avoid getting aroused in the first place, nor can they avoid getting sexually frustrated. That is, unless they have access to sexual outlets such as prostitutes (pornography alone can partially ease their frustration, but too much of it with too little of the real deal can be problematic).
Men who successfully refrain from rape? That’s setting the bar WAY LOW. I’ve successfully refrained from killing people: do I get a freaking cookie? Arousal and sexual frustration are not excuses for rape. I’VE been aroused and sexually frustrated and yet, guess what? I still can respect my male peers and have refrained from raping. I don’t even have to go and hire gigolos or watch pornography. And, while you’ve probably heard this before (or at least I hope you have) rape is a crime of dominance, NOT LUST. Just because it involves sex is does not mean it has anything to do with sexuality whatsoever.
Sexual frustration, itself a painful problem, spawns a whole host of problems that get only worse with time. Not least among these is the increased likelihood to commit rape.
The only problem sexual frustration leads to is blue balls, and guys can take the matter into their own hands to fix that one. You are not entitled to sex. Not ever. And again, sexual frustration doesn’t lead to rape (although I would argue that the entitled mentality that you are displaying does).
If these frustrated men had legal and easy access to effective sexual outlets such as prostitutes, they wouldn’t *need* to objectify my adolescent daughter. Let prostitutes do their thing so that smarter and classier gals can be blessedly released from harassment by horndogs. :D
They don’t NEED a fucking sexual outlet. And I will bet money that prostitution does not lower the rate of objectification (in fact, the statistics are against you still). And prostitutes aren’t any dumber or classier than anyone else: most of them get forced into a bad situtation. Finally, I repeat my original squickiness at your indifference to REAL LIVE WOMEN. Your lack of empathy is astounding, and rather terrifying.
Men aren’t forces of nature.
Jen:
I pay more attention to actions. Some men claim that they can successfully suppress their lust, but it’s what they actually *do* that matters.
Indeed. Come to Pasadena. I’ll introduce you to some remarkable men whose private lives and public language converge, whose actions and words are courageously compatible. They are not hypocrites or supermen, not even all Christians — just men who have learned to walk the walk and learned that they are the masters of their flesh, not the reverse.
What Antigone and Sophonisba said about prostitution.
I don’t generally post on these things, I leave that to others, but this just insulted me greatly and I had to say something.
Many western men can successful refrain from committing outright rape (at least in times of relative law and order), but that is under threat of getting themselves tossed into the rape pen. In various non-western societies where pornography and other outlets are less available to men, they have a poorer record of refraining from rape, even in relatively peaceful times.
However, even men who successfully refrain from rape *cannot* avoid getting aroused in the first place, nor can they avoid getting sexually frustrated. That is, unless they have access to sexual outlets such as prostitutes (pornography alone can partially ease their frustration, but too much of it with too little of the real deal can be problematic).
Sexual frustration, itself a painful problem, spawns a whole host of problems that get only worse with time. Not least among these is the increased likelihood to commit rape.
For the most part, I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church, but consider the results of their misguided abstinence policy. Priests may *think* they can successfully suppress their sexuality without any problems. Yet, the sexual scandal rocking the Church today shows this supposition to be dangerous wishful thinking.
Now, I am a western man, at least the last time I checked, and I have never raped someone. Furthermore, the reason I have never raped a woman isn’t that I will go to jail. It is because IT IS WRONG. Sexually frustrated or not, and I have been sexually frustrated by some women for extended periods, it has never entered into my mind that rape was the answer.
As for the avoiding getting aroused, I agree. A man, unless they have incredible control over their bodies, can’t avoid getting aroused; however, this does not give them the right to do anything about it.
This is not an issue of legality or not. Rape is wrong because you are forcing your self onto another human being. If you have a problem with being sexually frustrated and masturbation isn’t enough that’s your own problem, not the women’s problem.
Just incase I rambled above let me make my point blatantly obvious.
MY SEXUAL FRUSTRATION DOES NOT = I GET TO RAPE WOMEN WHO ARE GOOD LOOKING
Oh and one more thing, does the above idea of sexual frustration transfer to women?
If I frustrate a women, would she get to rape me?
Just a thought. (And yes women do lust after men, atleast every one I have ever met has)
“Jen, since you’re sure that someone’s got to service men’s needs, why shouldn’t it be your daughter?”
She is very bright and self-respecting and would rather die than so debase herself. I am talking about the sort of dull and trashy tramp whose only asset is her ass. A good example is one who tried to seduce my fiance. My daughter does not fit that profile at all. I am talking about the kind of woman who otherwise would be more of a drag on society than a benefit. Many of these women are overt prostitutes or golddigging bimbos no matter what. This kind of outlet would actually make them useful.
“I’d love to hear your explanation of why she’s too good for whoring, but other women aren’t.”
In case you haven’t noticed, prostitution exists in every society. The question then becomes: will we, as a society, utilize this outlet to the fullest or will we do our best to sweep it under the rug?
“Prostitutes aren’t your servants, and they’re not public utilities.”
I was not describing the present approach to prostitution, but how it could be vastly improved.
“They’re human beings, and better ones than you.”
I disagree. Obviously. :D
Jen, referring to women as “tramps” will get you banned from this blog pronto. Please try and use respectful language or taking your views elsewhere.
antigone:
Jen, you seem to be advocating for a female underclass that men can “Vent their lust on”. Pardon me while I squig the fuck out: it’s okay for woman to be disrespected and used as long as it’s not you or your daughter? WTF?
The way it is now, women get disrespected throughout our society. When I go to the mall to shop for my daughter’s birthday, I see 12 year old girls running around literally dressed like hookers. When I turn on the TV, and this is daytime TV mind you, I see music videos that would make Jezebel blush. You want to talk about what squigs you? Well, this is what squigs me. A whore should be in a bordello, not at the mall sexually provoking men and irritating women, not on television promoted as a role model for our daughters.
You have a very poor view of men, and really of humans in general.
I have a realistic view of men and of humans in general. Not to be too blunt, but the humanistic view is garbage.
Men don’t commit rape because of fear of being punished? What kind of retarded thinking is that?
This kind of thinking is realistic, not retarded. If you believe that fear of punishment has no positive effect, logically your next proposal would be that we abolish laws and punishments against rape. That would be retarded. The fact of the matter is that laws and punishments do have a positive, if partial, effect. However, they would be much more effective in concert with the sort of outlet that I have described.
What ever happened to men not committing rape because it’s wrong and a violation of another human being?
I’m sorry, but you evince a rather naïve view of men and of people in general. We do not live in a world where people can separate themselves from lust, any more than they can switch off greed, envy, or jealousy. People are not angels and the world is not the head of a pin. I would rather look at people in a realistic manner and approach problems accordingly.
And I think that you are mistaken, anyway. Look up non-western cultures: the laws on the books for raping are much stricter than they are here, and yet the rape is worse.
This is false. Having a keen interest in this subject, I am well acquainted with the data and it does not support your claims.
Men who successfully refrain from rape? That’s setting the bar WAY LOW.
As I mentioned above, I take a realistic approach.
Arousal and sexual frustration are not excuses for rape.
They are common causal factors in rape. Who do you think is more likely to commit rape: a man who gets sex several times a day or a man of similar sex drive who just got out of three years of solitary confinement? Let’s get our heads out of the clouds and observe reality. The sex scandal in the Catholic Church is very much due to arousal and sexual frustration. The clergy attempt to suppress their sexual desires and become increasingly frustrated. They become more and more sensitive to sexual stimuli, eventually to a freakish degree. The result is that thousands of boys and girls are raped.
I’VE been aroused and sexually frustrated and yet, guess what? I still can respect my male peers and have refrained from raping.
You are a woman. It is much easier for the typical woman to get sex if she needs it. That is one reason why prostitution is so imbalanced in gender makeup: overwhelmingly men paying women. That is why the ratio of “men seeking women” to “women seeking men” in sex personals is commonly over 50:1. While many women do feel lust, women are not men, and things are far too complicated for your simplistic comparison to even begin to work.
And, while you’ve probably heard this before (or at least I hope you have) rape is a crime of dominance, NOT LUST.
An often repeated lie is still a lie. This particular lie is so obviously ridiculous that only very educated (or rather, indoctrinated) people could convince themselves to believe it. If rape were not about lust, there would be no demand for trafficking in sex slavery, and rape-themed porn would not be among the most popular genres. Your lie depends on a false dichotomy. It is not a question of whether rape is about dominance or lust. Rape is very often about both dominance and lust. The two are not mutually exclusive; far from it, in fact. Indeed, as I pointed out above, sex and power are very often intimately related. If you are unaware that many men (and women, while I’m at it) clearly are sexually aroused by power, then I hate to say this, but your opinion about this topic is without weight.
The only problem sexual frustration leads to is blue balls, and guys can take the matter into their own hands to fix that one.
Like pornography, masturbation is only a partial substitute for sex.
And again, sexual frustration doesn’t lead to rape (although I would argue that the entitled mentality that you are displaying does).
If rape has nothing to do with sexuality, why would it matter if men felt entitled to sex? You contradict yourself. See, that’s what happens when you built a colossus of opinion upon feet of clay, such as the lie that rape has nothing to do with sex.
They don’t NEED a fucking sexual outlet.
*blinks* I see that “rather naïve” was an understatement.
And I will bet money that prostitution does not lower the rate of objectification (in fact, the statistics are against you still).
Then you would lose. The facts are on my side. Easy access to prostitution provides an outlet for objectification, so it is dispersed to fewer targets rather than spread throughout society. This is one reason why non-prostitute women in places like Holland and Germany have more respect, higher status, and more opportunities than in countries where prostitution is more strongly repressed. Incidentally, this is also a factor in why non-prostitute women are less likely to be raped in those countries than in others. I was just reading about how after Denmark legalized hardcore pornography, rape rates declined significantly.
Finally, I repeat my original squickiness at your indifference to REAL LIVE WOMEN.
To the contrary! I am not indifferent to women I actually care about. I care very much about women who are family or friends or who I otherwise have reason to love and respect. Why should I have the same attitude toward all women? What sane woman would?
Hugo:
Jen, referring to women as “tramps” will get you banned from this blog pronto. Please try and use respectful language or taking your views elsewhere.
My apologies. I observed some other posters using much worse profanity soI assumed that word would be tolerated. I will be more careful with my language in the future.
perplexed:
Good post Jen.
Thank you. Despite your nom de guerre, you are clearly less confused about reality than some other people. :d
Jen: Holy cow. I’m so sorry. I assure you there are many, many good men out there.
In case you haven’t noticed, prostitution exists in every society. The question then becomes: will we, as a society, utilize this outlet to the fullest or will we do our best to sweep it under the rug?
Yes - this is the key question. I also think a lot of people have over-looked something rather large: many men are compelled to enter into bad relationships just because of their sex drives. Many men don’t want to be promiscuous or have a relationship, but they do want sex. Where prostitution is illegal, the only way to have sex is to enter a relationship. Bad relationships create misery for all concerned. Also, legalised prostitution is safer; currently illegal prostitution is dangerous for both worker and client. Being anti-prostitution is like the Catholics being anti-condom: people are still going to have sex, so it has to be dealt with.
The way it is now, women get disrespected throughout our society. When I go to the mall to shop for my daughter’s birthday, I see 12 year old girls running around literally dressed like hookers. When I turn on the TV, and this is daytime TV mind you, I see music videos that would make Jezebel blush. You want to talk about what squigs you? Well, this is what squigs me. A whore should be in a bordello, not at the mall sexually provoking men and irritating women, not on television promoted as a role model for our daughters.
Good point - women are portrayed as prostitutes in mainstream media and in public spaces. Pre-pubsecent girls are sold clothing that is supposed to be sexually provocative if post-pubescent girl wore it (thongs, mini-skirts etc) - it’s all rather sick. It’s teaching girls that these are their assets to be used to do their bargaining with.
Men don’t commit rape because of fear of being punished? What kind of retarded thinking is that?
So why have laws? It’s obvious how humans act when law and order breaks down - witness Hurricane Katrina as a fine example.
To the contrary! I am not indifferent to women I actually care about.
That’s a telling remark.
Yes, it shows an exceeding lack of humanity.
not-so-perplexed:
I also think a lot of people have over-looked something rather large: many men are compelled to enter into bad relationships just because of their sex drives. Many men don’t want to be promiscuous or have a relationship, but they do want sex. Where prostitution is illegal, the only way to have sex is to enter a relationship.
Good call. Guess which sort of woman is going to take advantage of sexually desperate men? That is another problem with sweeping honest prostitution under the rug. One resulting problem is that dishonest prostitution — underhanded manipulation and golddigging — abounds throughout society. When men have unmet sexual needs, passive-aggressive women know they can take advantage of it. It brings out the worst behavior in many women. Too many women are prostitutes in the broad sense of using sexuality to get what they want, but they tend not to be actually counted as prostitutes in sex research.
Also, legalised prostitution is safer; currently illegal prostitution is dangerous for both worker and client.
With the right setup, legalized prostitution would provide big benefits for men and non-prostitute women. Men would tend to love it. Women who want to use their sexuality as a weapon without being counted as prostitutes — like the dishonest golddiggers I mentioned — would hate it. Other women would be fine with it. I know I would.
As for the workers, for many physiological and psychological reasons, women who give it up for large numbers of men are always going to have serious problems. But like I said before: prostitution is going to happen, it’s a matter of how we deal with it.
Being anti-prostitution is like the Catholics being anti-condom: people are still going to have sex, so it has to be dealt with.
I strongly agree with the portion in bold.
Regarding condoms, while purely heterosexual men are the ones most often told to wear these, which groups are actually at greatest risk of disease? This is what I observe: Women who spread their legs for multiple men are at greater risk than men who have sex only with women, even promiscuously; while men who have sex with multiple men, especially as ‘bottoms’, are at astronomically greater risk. The latter are at greater risk even if condoms are used.
A great many of the men who have sex with men also have sex with women. These women are vulnerable to picking up diseases that were vectored to the men from other men. Now, here is where it gets even more interesting. Many of those men who have sex with other men would prefer to have sex with women, but they are unable to get nearly enough of it, when they can get any at all. So frustrated and desperate, they ‘go on the down low’. So they get sex from surrogate ‘women’: gay men, shemales, transvestites. In doing so, they pick up diseases at a much higher rate than they would from females. Which ultimately contributes more to disease: hetero men not wearing condoms, or hetero men not getting enough sex from women? The right answer will offend people with a stake in maintaining a dishonest system, but the truth tends to.
It is much easier for the typical woman to get sex if she needs it.
I keep hearing this, but who is this typical (heterosexual, I assume) woman supposed to be getting sex from, if not men? It doesn’t add up.
jfpbookworm:
I keep hearing this, but who is this typical (heterosexual, I assume) woman supposed to be getting sex from, if not men? It doesn’t add up.
It only doesn’t add up if you assume that women seek sex from men as often as men seek sex from women. This assumption is false. If it were true, women seeking men in sex personals, for example, wouldn’t be so vastly outnumbered by men seeking women.
Let’s stay on topic, everyone — the male capacity for self-control. We’re starting to “move to the margins” of the conversation, and I’d like to steer us back.
Hear you Hugo.
The sex drive is like riding a buffalo - many guys learn to ride it, many ‘fall off’ and find themselves in a mess through their own lack of control and compulsion to have sex. Totally their fault, and they must take full responsibility for their actions. But still we must deal with these guys who lack self-control. It’s too idealistic to imagine a world where all men have mastered full control over their sex drives, but that simply will never happen. Prostitution is like a pressure valve - it’s a place for men to go if they’re feeling overwhelmed. As Jen states, these men are vulnerable to enter into bad relationships just for regular sex. As I stated, bad relationships bring with them all kinds of new problems : unwanted pregnancy, single motherdom, domestic violence (either/both being victims), and just plain old misery. Who wants to be with someone just for the promise of 10 or 20 minutes of pleasure?
Self-control is something we all must try to master everyday of our lives, but we need a contingency plan when people fail to control themselves.
Prostitution is like a pressure valve - it’s a place for men to go if they’re feeling overwhelmed.
Women aren’t a place.
As I stated, bad relationships bring with them all kinds of new problems : unwanted pregnancy, single motherdom, domestic violence (either/both being victims), and just plain old misery.
You think prostitutes like all of that? Unwanted pregnancy, single motherhood, violence, and misery? Why would you think that?
So, pedophilia, rape, prostitution, and homosexuality can all result from frustrated sexuality? What ever happened to good ol’ masturbation?
jane: So, pedophilia, rape, prostitution, and homosexuality can all result from frustrated sexuality?
Frustration is often an crucial casual factor. I have given important examples where this is the case.
What ever happened to good ol’ masturbation?
Masturbation is only a partial outlet, not a complete one. It is an experience inherently different from sex. Therefore, its capacity as a pressure valve is by nature quite limited, albeit definitely of some usefulness.
But still we must deal with these guys who lack self-control. It’s too idealistic to imagine a world where all men have mastered full control over their sex drives, but that simply will never happen. Prostitution is like a pressure valve - it’s a place for men to go if they’re feeling overwhelmed.
Say what? Look: sexual frustration is getting blown (sorry) way out of proportion here.. Blue balls is a phrase.. No guy really get’s “blue” balls. If you are a guy that can’t master your sex drive.. seek help. You got a problem.
I’ve had periods of less than nominal sexual activity. I didn’t fall out or anything. No depression, and nothing turned blue… I didn’t get hair growing out of strange places. No hairy palms.. sweats, psychotic behavior… nada.
You sir, underestimate normal men..
Uzzah:
Say what? Look: sexual frustration is getting blown (sorry) way out of proportion here..
For starters, tell that to the thousands of children molested by sexually frustrated clergy.
Oh, I know how to play this game!
Human beings are naturally violent. We’ve evolved this way because we compete over limited resources. The urge to kill other people (especially those who annoy you) is uncontrollable. People are going to get killed, that’s just the way it is, and the only reason people don’t routinely kill people (especially the ones near us) is because we are all afraid of going to jail, where we might be killed. We should exercise self-restraint, but since that’s not always possible, we should have safe outlets where we can’t vent this frustration.
Violent video games help, but that really only goes so far. It’s not the real deal like watching an actual human being die in front of your eyes.
So, in peace times (which we want, because honestly, having such a huge military is expensive) we need to have an underclass of human beings that we can sacrifice. (During war, the underclass is our enemy of course.) I think that we should be able to kill homeless people. I mean, it solves so many problems: we can clean up the streets, we can prevent the spread of communicable diseases, and it reduces poverty and, well, homelessness. Everybody wins!
And honestly, there’s murder now, so we should readjust so the people who are getting killed are just the riffraff anyway.
For starters, tell that to the thousands of children molested by sexually frustrated clergy.
Clearly, the answer is to set up child brothels so that those frustrated men can vent their lusts on worthless, trashy children. That will allow high quality children, who are the only ones who matter, to live unmolested. Right, Jen? Am I getting it?
You sir, underestimate normal men..
Normal men are the ones who do get sexually frustrated if they go for long periods without sex. There are numerous problems associated with male sexual repression. They are much too widespread to be confined only to some abnormal minority. You want abnormal? Find a man in his prime who hasn’t had sex in months or years and is perfectly happy. That’s abnormality personified.
Uzzah:
Say what? Look: sexual frustration is getting blown (sorry) way out of proportion here..
For starters, tell that to the thousands of children molested by sexually frustrated clergy.
I’d rather tell sexually frustrated clergy that they are fucked up (as well as excommunicated, and with a little help from God, imprisoned)..
And honestly, there’s murder now, so we should readjust so the people who are getting killed are just the riffraff anyway
I’m afraid reductio ad absurdam only works on people who are capable of recognizing their absurdity. Jen and perplexed must know that prostitutes get murdered and raped at a higher rate than other women, but for them, this is a feature, not a bug. Two birds with one stone.
Antigone
Oh, I know how to play this game!
Yes. But that’s your game, not mine. Your game is titled ‘Apples and Oranges’ from Disingenuous Games, a subsidiary of Sophistry, Inc. :D
Normal men are the ones who do get sexually frustrated if they go for long periods without sex. There are numerous problems associated with male sexual repression. They are much too widespread to be confined only to some abnormal minority. You want abnormal? Find a man in his prime who hasn’t had sex in months or years and is perfectly happy. That’s abnormality personified.
You know, that is about he biggest bunch of bullshit I’ve ever heard here.. And believe me I read some real dandys .. I thought the Feminists here could spin a tale..
Uzzah:
You know, that is about he biggest bunch of bullshit I’ve ever heard here..
It’s the truth, even if you don’t like it. What’s ‘bullshit’ is expecting there not to be problems. Pathetic, ignorant, dangerous bullshit.
Uzzah, if men don’t need sex, why do so many pay dearly for it, one way or another? For example, in Denmark on a typical day, more men use prostitutes than the number of Danes who go to the movies. Why are so many men desperately looking for sex (on a typical board for sex personals, men looking for women outnumber the reverse by 50:1)? If they didn’t need it, they could easily live without it. But that isn’t what actually happens, ever, in any society. Are you familiar with the law of supply and demand?
Sexual assault is a crime, Jen. I would agree with you that crime is a part of the human condition.
As I’m sure some of the male readers on this blog can attest, female sexual abuse of males happens - and as you say, a “woman can get it anywhere”. Sexual abuse is about far more than lust.
Someone has sold you a bill of goods justifying their own sociopathy. People who cannot empathise exist, but it is not lust’s fault: lust doesn’t suddenly strip men of their humanity. I have had men stop in the middle of sex of their own volition because they were worried that I wasn’t having fun. (Even if I was…)
Since I have had a bunch of friends who have recently had babies, I can find you a bunch of men in their primes who haven’t had intercourse in months (after the birth of their children…) and are perfectly happy. Agreed, they would not be happy if they felt they were never going to have sex again: *but neither would I*.
Statistically, healthy men who go actually without sex for years, yet still claim to be happy, are quite rare. And their claim is one thing; actions are another. Priests claim that they will be able to live without sex, but altar boys will tell you a different story, the true story.
I never thought I’d agree with Uzzah. But the myth of the male weakness is where MRAs and feminists agree: it’s total bullshit.
Jen, this isn’t comparing apples and oranges. This is you being immoral and retarded.
Why are so many men desperately looking for sex (on a typical board for sex personals, men looking for women outnumber the reverse by 50:1)?
Because even in this enlightened time we live in, women that place personal ads are thought less of, and think less of themselves, if they place such an ad. Men don’t receive such treatment or feel a stigma attached to it. Some things don’t change easily.
Uzzah, if men don’t need sex, why do so many pay dearly for it, one way or another? For example, in Denmark on a typical day, more men use prostitutes than the number of Danes who go to the movies.
Typically, most normal men enjoy good sex more than movies.. Guess it depends on how good it is tho. Movies or the sex that is..
Antigone:
I never thought I’d agree with Uzzah. But the myth of the male weakness is where MRAs and feminists agree
Wait a minute. In reality, I know many feminists and MRAs who agree with me. You see, unlike you, they are capable of keenly observing the way men actually act and developing careful conclusions from their observations. Also unlike you, they do not skew their vision with utopian filters. An ‘ism’ need not equal utopianism. I have friends who are hardcore feminists with whom I am often in agreement. In fact, I was an active member of a feminist organization for years. I no longer see women as one quasi-class similar to the way Marxists see ‘the proletariat’ (not that I ever bought that in my heart of hearts), but I have not repudiated everything I have learned from feminism. Speaking of which, what kind of feminist would ignore the fact that men are dangerous? Newsflash: not all feminists agree with you. None of the honest ones do.
it’s total bullshit.
No; it’s realism. ‘Bullshit’ is claiming that, in this world of the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking, men are not dangerous. ‘Bullshit’ is asserting, even as sexually frustrated priests are causing such scandal in the Catholic Church, that male sexual desperation is not a problem.
Jen, this isn’t comparing apples and oranges. This is you being immoral and retarded.
I had it right the first time: you were comparing apples and oranges. As for your insults of choice, please. My views are so developed partly because I am intelligent and moral and do a great deal of keen observation. That my intellectual outlook and morality are different from yours does not make them ‘bullshit’. This is even more true considering that they are more realistic than yours, not less.
I’m glad to see that you are so oh-so intelligent and wise, and I’m just a niave little idealist living in a fairy land.
It’s weird though. In the world I live in, I do know that HUMANS are dangerous. I do know that we all have the potential for evil.
In my little world, my friends are much bigger and stronger than I am, and weirdly enough, do not rape me. If I say “no” to my boyfriend, he doesn’t rape me OR go out and rape so “less deserving” woman. In fact, my friends have all had long periods of celibacy where they DON’T rape people. In my little “utopian world” my male friends are highly offended if I suggest that they’re all rapist.
In this world, we punish rapists because that’s a violation of a person’s self-autonomy, any person’s.
In my little world, the vast majority of Catholic priests have been celibate, and an even larger majority has not had non-consensual sex.
In my little utopian feminist head, we don’t abuse other people, because they’re people, and for no other reason whatsoever.
Your views appear to be devoluped because you lack empathy. Your “keen sense of observation” appears to be anatomically abnormal.
Folks, let’s try and keep this civil and on topic. Antigone, calling another poster “retarded” won’t fly. Jen, writing Newsflash: not all feminists agree with you. None of the honest ones do to Antigone is equally unacceptable. Civility and grace are the ground rules, and if you feel as if you are talking past each other, best to let the topic drop.
Jen, you’ve made your point, I reject it completely and categorically. If you imply that those of us men who claim to be able to master our sexual impulses are rare, that’s an acceptable point (though one I will disagree with.) If you say we are liars, then you are no longer welcome on this blog.
You’re right Hugo. That was uncalled for.
I’m sorry Jen, I should not call you retarded, as aside from being personally insulting, it is also belittling to people with genuine mental disabilities. I allowed my passions to be misplaced.
That still does not address the fact that you don’t seem to mind placing an underclass of women.
I’m glad to see that you are so oh-so intelligent and wise, and I’m just a niave little idealist living in a fairy land.
I am happy that you do experience a glimmer of realistic thought on occasion. :D
It’s wierd though. In the world I live in, I do know that HUMANS are dangerous. I do know that we all have the potential for evil.
I would be the last to disagree with this bit. It’s wierd though. We were talking about men.
In my little world, my friends are much bigger and stronger than I am, and weirdly enough, do not rape me.
I have read careful research showing that one out of three women testify just the opposite. (This is backed up by my personal observations.) That’s just the women who actually speak up. In all likelihood, most of them do not. Most estimates hold that 80-90% of rapes are not even reported.
If I say “no” to my boyfriend, he doesn’t rape me OR go out and rape so “less deserving” woman.
How would you know that the latter assertion is true? There is infidelity in most marriages, let alone unmarried relationships. Much of this infidelity involves visits with prostitutes, who may or may not be consenting. Much of it involves unambiguous rape.
In fact, my friends have all had long periods of celibacy where they DON’T rape people. In my little “utopian world” my male friends are highly offended if I suggest that they’re all rapist.
See above.
In my little world, the vast majority of Catholic priests have been celibate, and an even larger majority has not had non-consensual sex.
Correction: the majority tell you that they are celibate. The majority say that they have not had non-consensual sex. It would be a mistake to award much credibility to mere words just because they are what you want to hear. In general, most rapes are not reported; whey would it be any different within the Catholic Church? Even those that are reported are not a marginal number like you would want to believe.
In my little utopian feminist head, we don’t abuse other people, because they’re people, and for no other reason whatsoever.
You should not confuse your fantasy world with reality. Here in the real world, most women get raped, harassed, and/or abused one or more times in their lives.
Your views appear to be devoluped because you lack empathy. Your “keen sense of observation” appears to be anatomically abnormal.
So my brain is abnormal because I disagree with you? I have seen silly arguments before, but in the silliness sweepstakes this takes the cake.
Jen, you ignored my request for civility posted above. Antigone apologized, but you charge on like a bull in a china shop — and you’re last sentence gets you banned.
Hugo: I posted that reply before I had even read Antigone’s apology or your request for civility. My apologies to you and to Antigone. I will respect your wishes and make this my last post here unless there is further notice. If you change your mind, feel free to email me. Anyone else can feel free to contact me by email.
I have read careful research showing that one out of three women testify just the opposite.
To clarify, there is variation in different groups in America, but it’s always much higher than what could be considered ‘rare’.
Jen, you’ve fought a good fight, but you’re a sacrificial lamb who’s wandered into the Lion’s Den.
Hugo, the other posters have IMO been way more provocative and insulting to Jen as she has to them, yet you’ve treated them with Kid Gloves and bitch-slapped Jen. Shame on you. However, this is a “pro-feminist” space so I’m not surprised. Disappointed, to be sure, but not at all surprised.
This is a very heated topic and Jen has argued a very good case. I don’t agree with all she’s said, but most of it rings true. That you all feel so errible threatened by the truth as non-feminists see it speaks volumes.
Mr. Bad, would you like to be banned too? Again? bitchslapped?
Sorry Hugo, but that’s how I see your treatment of Jen vs. the others. If you can come up with a better term I’m all ears, but among most of us ‘normal’ guys that’s what you did to Jen is called. Take it or leave it.
Ban me if you must, but as I said, this is a very heated topic and others have been far more provocative than Jen or I. I simply feel that your biased treatment needs to be called-out and if doing so threatens you that much then as I said, it speaks volumes.
Mr. Bad, I rebuked Antigone for her harsh words — and got a prompt apology. The same did not come from Jen until after she had posted another long piece that continued more of the same. If Antigone had continued down that same direction, wham!
Jen self-describes as a feminist who thinks men are sex-crazed and weak; why you end up defending her as having fought the “good fight” is beyond me — I would think a self-respecting MRA would be quick to take offense at her notion that most men are little more than panting dogs who need regular satiation.
And the term “bitch slapped” has no place here. Folks, this is not a free-wheeling forum. This is a place for civil discussion without name-calling. Sometimes, like a referee on the field, I don’t catch the first insult, only the response. I don’t always read all the comments that appear in these threads, so my responses may be less than perfect.
Mr. Bad, you’ve come back twice from bans, and you frequently say how “disappointing” or “typical” my comments policy is. You aren’t paid to be here, and frankly, my blog isn’t big enough or important enough to be worth the time of those who find it disappointing.
Jen, on Catholic priests:
1) The overwhelming majority of Catholic priests don’t molest altar boys, despite the requirement that they vow themselves to a lifetime of sexual frustration. That some have molested altar boys, and, worse, that too many bishops covered for them, is indeed a horror story, and it may even be a horror story fed in some way by the celibacy requirement. It could be, for example, that men already dealing with perverse desires joined the priesthood in larger numbers in the misguided hope that celibacy would provide them a cure. Or it could be that the difficulty of living a lifetime of celibacy led to dishonesty about priests’ sexual failures, which in turn made it easier to become dishonest about worse wrongs. And having a steady decline in the number of priests may have aggravated the bishops’ willingness to hang onto very bad ones.
But, given that, as I said, the overwhelming majority of Catholic priests don’t molest young boys, I think that any “celibacy produces child molesting” model as simple as assuming the priests all went for boys because they couldn’t get women just doesn’t hold water.
2) All evidence is that Catholic priests, when they want to, can get women. They’re surrounded by women in most of their professional life, and some of those women find them attractive. And Catholic priest who hasn’t been having affairs with women hasn’t been trying. If anything, they have rather an easier time attracting women than the average man. So again, priests who molest boys do it because they already had something warped in them that made them want to do that, not because celibacy forces them to.
Catholic priests, like other men, are actually capable of a measure of sexual self-control, most of the time.
Hugo, like you, I don’t read every single word of every single post because, frankly, I don’t think I need to in order the get the gist of the thread. The reason I defend Jen is not for every single specific thing she says, but rather, for her overall tendency to cut men slack when IMO we deserve it. You on the other hand hold us to a much higher standard than women, many times castigating us for the slightest infraction (e.g., ‘unpure thoughts’ with no concomitant acting-out) while letting women off the hook altogether, in the same manner that overly-indulgent parents do to spoiled children. Now tell me, who is the one who should be taking offense here at remarks?
I certainly believe that men are not “panting dogs,” but on the other hand, I also realize that there are undeniable (at least from a biologist’s POV) forces at work that make men - and women - tend to do things that some overly-sensitive women and pro-feminist men take offense. And I belive that recognizing this and being able to cut people, both men and women, slack for them is being a heck of a lot more gracious and humane than getting all puritanical and neo-Victorian on folks for, e.g., thinking ‘unpure thoughts.’ Holy cow Hombre, you call yourself “progressive?!” IMO some of your musings are right out of the 19th century.
Look Hugo, I’m sorry for the “bitch-slap” remark. You’re right, that was excessively harsh and I take it back. But really, IMO you need to do some serious self-reflection on some of things you’ve been advocating lately. As I said, they are anything but “progressive.” If you’re evolving towards some prudish, neo-Victorian New Man, then cool. But at least have the good sense to get a grip and recognize what you’re doing and where you’re going with all this.
Mr. Bad; It appears that Jen is suggesting that most men have a problem controlling their lusts, and that it is male lust that is behind the extreme actions of pedophilia and assault. I am *shocked* that you would agree in any way with this argument. It makes men out to be… well, pretty evil, frankly. She shows high numbers for sexual assault by men, which in any other post you would have attacked, and she’s suggesting that it’s a basic dynamic of the gender. This is far from cutting men slack; and if I believed her argument, I would be the most seperatist feminist on the planet.
I think you’ve gotten confused, here, Mr. Bad. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend… Antigone and Lynn and Hugo and I are saying men *aren’t* that broken in the head or the sexuality, but are in fact often responsible, caring individuals. Heck, Lynn even defended the reputations of innocent Catholic priests; and every feminist knows the critiques regarding Catholicism. (Even practising Catholic feminists.)
thinks men are sex-crazed and weak; why you end up defending her as having fought the “good fight” is beyond me
It was the sickening hatred of prostitutes that made her acceptable. Women can insult men in the most degrading terms imaginable and still get along fine with some MRAs, as long as they insult other women just a little bit more. Slut-baiting is the great uniter. It’s almost touching.
Question to those opposed to legalised prostitution:
- What do you propose to do about illegal prostitution? It isn’t going away, and its useage is even on the rise. See here for how often men use prostitutes in the UK.
Is it better to have street walkers or a licensed brothel?
sophonisba wrote:-
Women aren’t a place.
You think prostitutes like all of that? Unwanted pregnancy, single motherhood, violence, and misery? Why would you think that?
Women are a place to guys who pay streetwalkers for sex; these streetwalkers DO encounter unwanted pregnancy, violence and misery while they freelance on the streets because they have zero protection or backup.
How do you propose to eridicate prostitution, something that’s been around since the dawn of time?
Why are you against an idea that gives prostitutes greater protection?
Sure, it’s fine to be against legalised prostitution, but I’m all ears for your alternative solution.
these streetwalkers DO encounter unwanted pregnancy, violence and misery while they freelance on the streets because they have zero protection or backup.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Congratulations on successfully repeating it back to me.
Sure, it’s fine to be against legalised prostitution,
What are you talking about? Who are you talking to?
Question to those opposed to legalised prostitution
Okay, I get it. I see we’ve entered non sequitur city.
Here’s the thing. You say:
Prostitution is like a pressure valve - it’s a place for men to go if they’re feeling overwhelmed.
Except it isn’t. Because prostitution doesn’t guarantee you a fuck. Legal or illegal, Prostitutes get to say no.
You claim to want to improve their status and security. Great, you agree with feminists. Only thing is, once a woman’s off the street, legal, safe, and earning a reasonable wage for sex work, she doesn’t have to take on all clients anymore. She gets to turn away abusive and unpleasant men, and that’s just what high-status prostitutes do. Stop degrading and stigmatizing prostitutes, and they stop taking shit from clients. So much for your “pressure-valve.” Did you think of that?
‘The overwhelming majority of Catholic priests don’t molest altar boys’
i don’t believe this. a poster here beat me to it but rape is very very under-reported. i bet it is even more under-reported in the catholic church. lots and lots of priests are molesting children along with a million problems from their sex repression. also you are right that they are around adult women but a woman is harder to keep quiet than some scared little kid.
‘Legal or illegal, Prostitutes get to say no.’
what? lots of them would want to say no but can’t because they need money. and then there are plenty who are slaves and can’t say no period.
‘You claim to want to improve their status and security. Great, you agree with feminists.’
lots of women don’t like prostitutes and i bet lots are the same ones who subscribe to ms magazine and whatnot. i can’t blame them having some bad feelings toward prostitutes.
‘Only thing is, once a woman’s off the street, legal, safe, and earning a reasonable wage for sex work, she doesn’t have to take on all clients anymore.’
that depends on how things are set-up.
‘She gets to turn away abusive and unpleasant men, and that’s just what high-status prostitutes do. Stop degrading and stigmatizing prostitutes, and they stop taking shit from clients. So much for your “pressure-valve.” Did you think of that?’
didn’t one of the posters talk about an idea to make using prostitutes legal but without taking the stigma off prostitutes? their status could be kept ’separate’ from the status from other women. i like that idea. as some posters said men need a sex outlet but it’s best that prostitutes never be glorified. i wouldn’t want to see men taking that kind of woman home for wives, that would be a disaster. as it is said they are the kind you ‘don’t take home to mama’!
rhonda j
Mr. Bad; It appears that Jen is suggesting that most men have a problem controlling their lusts, and that it is male lust that is behind the extreme actions of pedophilia and assault. I am *shocked* that you would agree in any way with this argument. It makes men out to be… well, pretty evil, frankly.
Sounds like Mr. Bad and Jen are saying men are broken and need fixing. Hmm.. I trying to remember where I’ve heard that one before…
men *aren’t* that broken in the head or the sexuality, but are in fact often responsible, caring individuals.
Now Arwen, you’re just plain being mean now.. You can’t insult men like that.. I’m appalled..
i like that idea. as some posters said men need a sex outlet but it’s best that prostitutes never be glorified. i wouldn’t want to see men taking that kind of woman home for wives, that would be a disaster. as it is said they are the kind you ‘don’t take home to mama’!
It’s been my experience that women, for whatever reason, show more pure distain for prostitutes than most men. They consider these women, to coin an often used phrase, less than human. Prostitutes are just trying to make a living. A dangerous living, under the conditions and laws they operate under today.
There will always be women who view prostitution as a easy way to make a living. That is their choice in a free country. At least make it safer for them. Remove the pimp factor. Provide supervised health care and safe places for them to do business
didn’t one of the posters talk about an idea to make using prostitutes legal but without taking the stigma off prostitutes? their status could be kept ’separate’ from the status from other women. i like that idea. as some posters said men need a sex outlet but it’s best that prostitutes never be glorified. i wouldn’t want to see men taking that kind of woman home for wives, that would be a disaster. as it is said they are the kind you ‘don’t take home to mama’!
Oh, rhondaj, never ask for whom the patriarchy tolls. It tolls for thee.
I have to thank you and Jen for illuminating one of the primary tactical weaknesses of feminism, though. We put so much effort into exposing double standards and hidden assumptions that it puts us at something of a loss when you come out openly, dripping with unashamed misogyny from the very start. When there’s nothing to expose because it’s all right there, what can be said? “Being evil is wrong?”
It really is, though.
perplexed: I second the “who are you talking to”? question. Legalized prostitution isn’t really what people were reacting to, I don’t think.
I support the legalization of prostitution, but for very different reasons than the ones Jen gave. (Like removing the pimp factor…)
Arwen said: “Mr. Bad; It appears that Jen is suggesting that most men have a problem controlling their lusts, and that it is male lust that is behind the extreme actions of pedophilia and assault. I am *shocked* that you would agree in any way with this argument. It makes men out to be… well, pretty evil, frankly.”
Arwen, I clearly stated that 1) I don’t read every word of every poster in a thread, and 2) that I don’t agree with everything Jen has said. This is a case of not agreeing with her on some points and agreeing with others. While I do believe that lust is behind actions like pedophilia and assualt - it makes way more sense than the inane explanations related to “power and control over women and children,” etc. - I reject her assertions that rape is overreported and that men are going around raping women and children in epidemic numbers. That’s ridiculous. If anything, rape is over-reported, as the huge numbers of false allegations clearly demonstrate.
As I said, I agree with Jen on the biological basis of lust, etc. Biology is a mature science and has shown lust, etc., in humans and other mammals. On the other hand, I strongly reject her assertions re. the prevalence of rape in our society, men’s inability to control themselves, etc. While we are indeed mammals, we men are not animals, despite some people’s beliefs otherwise.
So I take it sophonisba is against the legalisation of prostitution?
I was asking the question to you, dear reader, whoever you may be.
‘She shows high numbers for sexual assault by men, which in any other post you would have attacked, and she’s suggesting that it’s a basic dynamic of the gender.’
there -are- high numbers of sexual assaults by men. even the fbi and doj can figure that out. that’s what researching rape always will show unless you have an agenda to downplay it big-time. but i guess damn the facts you’d rather believe rape is not a problem than consider practical ways to deal with it.
‘We put so much effort into exposing double standards and hidden assumptions that it puts us at something of a loss when you come out openly, dripping with unashamed misogyny from the very start.’
except my ‘double standard’ is based on recognizing men’s biological needs not hatred for women as a sex which would include self-hatred. men and women are biologically different so there will always be different standards. it’s a matter of how honest and smart we are about it. oh and looking down on prostitutes doesn’t mean hating all women. not all women are whores and implying that would be what -i- would call an act of misogyny.
‘Sounds like Mr. Bad and Jen are saying men are broken and need fixing.’
what? what i read was that men have natural needs and we best recognize that.
‘I support the legalization of prostitution, but for very different reasons than the ones Jen gave. (Like removing the pimp factor…)’
yeah but she is right that legalizing the use of prostitutes wouldn’t have to get rid of the stigma on prostitutes. or the pimp slash madam factor. just because a business is legal doesn’t mean everyone will be ’self employed’. these things depend on the way it’s set-up. some of us pro-legalizers are far-sighted.
‘If anything, rape is over-reported’
there’s no reason to believe that though. there’s a lot more evidence that it’s under-reported. as jen said men have sexual urges that get frustrated if not met. i will say that c*ck-teasing is even more under-reported than rape tho. way more.
‘While we are indeed mammals, we men are not animals, despite some people’s beliefs otherwise.’
both men and women are animals. humans are part of the animal kingdom.
rhonda j
Analogy: give heroin addicts a drop-in centre for clean needles to prevent AIDS and also a chance to get off heroin.
It’s an analogy folks - don’t take it TOO literally. I’m just saying that keeping things legal means they can be monitored and licensed. Ideals and reality sometimes don’t meet up - you need to be pragmatic.
except my ‘double standard’ is based on recognizing men’s biological needs not hatred for women as a sex which would include self-hatred. men and women are biologically different so there will always be different standards.
The “I’m more realistic/honest than you because I think in broad stereotypes” argument is getting a little old. When did utter biology-is-destiny, nothing-we-can-do cynicism become the only acceptably “realistic” outlook? No one’s denying that in our current culture, a lot of men act as if their sexual appetites are insatiable and uncontrollable; we’re just saying that has a lot more to do with the fact that men are raised to believe that their desires are more important than women’s basic human rights, and a lot less to do with “biological differen[ces].” We are not disagreeing about the phenomenon; we’re disagreeing about the cause, and the best method of addressing it. I hardly think that deserves the patronizing pat-on-the-head “run along and let those of us who live in the real world talk” attitude. It is not unrealistic to believe that people and things can change. It is not dishonest to believe that people can and do break out of their social conditioning.
Besides, I can’t help but laugh at the idea that people like you and Jen (both, I presume, women) are condescendingly claiming to know more about male sexual drives than, say, Hugo (who, you know, ACTUALLY IS A MAN). I’m not saying Hugo’s necessarily qualified to speak for all men, but seeing as he has that legendary “male sex drive” and you don’t, he might be a little bit more qualified than you to talk about the effect it’s had on his life and may have on other men’s lives, no?
i will say that c*ck-teasing is even more under-reported than rape tho. way more.
Have I stumbled into some bizarre alternate universe where daring to refuse sex with a man the instant he wants it is a crime equivalent to sexual assault? To whom would you suggest the poor, put-upon men “report” these indignities, anyway? Is there some kind of special task force out there rounding up women who dare to wear revealing clothing, flirt, be openly sexual, etc. without being sexually available whenever and wherever a particular man wants them?
Seriously, what on Earth made you think that was an appropriate comparison to make?
and before someone gets the wrong idea i’m not saying women lack a sex drive. i have some bisexual whip-happy urges myself and prolly would be a customer if it were legal to use prostitutes. but sexual as i am i still don’t want to have sex with men anywhere near as much as men want it from me. or in most of the nasty ways they want it. {tho it’d be hot to see prostitutes doing them all. :)} look. i usually get in the mood for sex with my boyfriend about two or three times a week. which is more often than most of my girlfriends want it with theirs. but my boyfriend wants it at least once a day, often several times a day. and he also loves bjs, something i don’t even enjoy performing. et cetera. so even though i enjoy sex with him, he craves sex acts that i don’t want to perform. even the sex acts that i love to do with him he craves way way more often than i get in the mood. and when he gets frustrated, it -does- affect his behavior. there’s nothing wrong with him and he’s a healthy man he just can get frustrated like any healthy man. and i’m not one of those ‘manipulators’ or ‘gold-diggers’ that jen mentioned so i don’t want to use this against him. that’s not the way i wanna be and it’s not healthy for our relationship. prostitutes as a ‘pressure-valve’ would be very very helpful. i can barely begin to list all the ways how. when my boyfriend needs sex and i’m not in the mood to do him no need for there to be a crisis. he can just go down to whoretown and get some. no drama no tangled web with some rival woman who wants to steal him away from me. just getting his sex needs satisfied by a hooker. and if i feel any jealousy i can just grab my cat’o'nine and come down. hey. that’d be -fun-. :)
rhonda j
‘No one’s denying that in our current culture, a lot of men act as if their sexual appetites are insatiable and uncontrollable;’
well i disagree from experience that this is acting. it’s real. my bf was raised to believe he could just say no to his sex needs. didn’t work. as jen said it doesn’t work for priests either. i’ll add that it doesn’t work for presidents. :)
‘When did utter biology-is-destiny, nothing-we-can-do cynicism become the only acceptably “realistic” outlook?’
um. hello? there is lots we can do. do you even read my messages thru? did you read jen’s? did you read perplexed? we want -big- changes. like making it legal to use prostitutes as an outlet. that’s not ‘nothing-we-can-do cynicism’. smart and realistic ideas? yeah.
‘Besides, I can’t help but laugh at the idea that people like you and Jen (both, I presume, women) are condescendingly claiming to know more about male sexual drives than, say, Hugo (who, you know, ACTUALLY IS A MAN).’
this is way obvious but hugo isn’t a normal man. and he only backs up our point. that’s why he has to struggle to ‘master’ his sex drive in the first place. if it wasn’t a struggle he wouldn’t be so defensive about it imho {and no offense just an observation}.
‘Clearly, the answer is to set up child brothels so that those frustrated men can vent their lusts on worthless, trashy children. That will allow high quality children, who are the only ones who matter, to live unmolested.’
this caught my eye. i remember reading that the age of consent for prostitutes in holland used to be 16. but some other governments pressured them to raise it to 18. iirc.
i thought that was stupid. a prostitute is a prostitute, so there’s no big deal about a couple years difference. or even a few years imho. it’s win-win for the community. let’s face it. any girl who gets into that kind of work doesn’t have the right stuff to be a rocket scientist anyway. :)
i know some here don’t like the realities of biology but men -are- hardwired with a tendency to crave the ‘young stuff’. some of you go on and on about ’social conditioning’. look. strip club owners don’t give a damn about ’social conditioning’. if they could make as much money with 50-year old table-dancers they would. but that isn’t what men will pay for. it has squat to do with ’social conditioning’ and everything to do with hard-wired sex attraction. a man can love his 50-year old wife. but if he looks out the window and sees a pigtailed young cutie hopscotching by, -look out-. he’ll feel like a young buck again. ’shizaaaaaaaaaaam’ as my bf likes to say.
i think jen hit the nail on the head: why the hell should men be forced to drool over her daughter? why not have prostitutes to cater to these cravings? some folks here are like dorothy and think they can click their heels together and make these needs disappear. um. no.
iirc the age of consent in spain is 12 or 13. imho somewhere around that would be good for prostitutes and 18 or so for other women.
Rhonda, I’m sorry — you’re crossing a line here. Advocating child prostitution is an unacceptable ideological position here. As they say, you’ve gone “beyond the pale”. Future comments along this line will get you banned.
Whether you’re serious or not, some views — even when expressed without profanity or personal insult — go beyond what I’m willing to tolerate. If you’ve got a problem with that, email me, but don’t discuss it on this blog.
we want -big- changes. like making it legal to use prostitutes as an outlet. that’s not ‘nothing-we-can-do cynicism’.
Yeah, you’re willing to legally sanction an underclass of women who you clearly consider subhuman and unfit for normal lives in polite society, because you can’t even bring yourself to consider the idea that maybe men don’t need to have sex each and every time the thought crosses their minds. Truly a vision of a better world.
There’s already an “outlet” for sexually frustrated men who can’t find someone willing to have sex with them. It’s called masturbation. And sure, maybe it isn’t quite as good as “the real thing,” but if you’re going to make the argument that sexual frustration is a physical need that must be satisfied, well, it’ll do the job (much in the same way that a cheap hamburger will satisfy one’s hunger even if it’s not quite as good as filet mignon). Why should men be entitled to have women fulfill their sexual needs when they’re perfectly capable of doing so themselves? Similarly, there are perfectly workable options for men who enjoy particular sex acts their girlfriends/wives don’t like– either break up and find someone who does like those acts, or learn to enjoy other things. There’s no reason to involve prostitutes (who may not enjoy those acts any more than you do, but that’s okay when it’s them and not you, right?).
See, adults are expected to make these kinds of compromises all the time, because the world isn’t fair, and they can’t always have what they want the moment they want it. To argue that men are biologically incapable of accepting the reality that women aren’t always sexually available to them is to argue, basically, that men are overgrown children. And that is cynicism of the worst kind.
i don’t believe this. a poster here beat me to it but rape is very very under-reported. i bet it is even more under-reported in the catholic church.
Ah, well, by the “they must be molesting children even if nobody’s reporting it” standard, you and I could well be child molesters. Sex abuse may be underreported, but underreported by an order of magnitude?
Go look at the John Jay Study if you want a serious estimate of the prevalence of sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Or, if you mistrust the John Jay Study because it was commissioned by the Catholic bishops (though it is produced by a reputable college research team), you can check out Richard Sipe, a psychiatrist who is a former priest who has studied celibacy and sexuality in the Catholic priesthood and who is a strong critic both of the Catholic Church’s handling of sexual abuse cases and of mandatory celibacy. Richard Sipe has a very high estimate of the number of priests who are failing to observe celibacy (and one that’s disputed by other commenters on the Catholic Church scandals, such as Father Andrew Greeley), but even by Sipe’s estimate the vast majority of Catholic priests are not actually molesting minors.
lots and lots of priests are molesting children along with a million problems from their sex repression.
Which I don’t dispute. I simply affirm that lots and lots more Catholic priests are innocent of molesting children.
also you are right that they are around adult women but a woman is harder to keep quiet than some scared little kid.
Nevertheless, many more Catholic priests in fact have sex with adult women than have sex with children. You might try talking some time to the adult women who have been their partners.
And, though sex between a supposed-to-be-celibate priest and an adult woman is also problematic (particularly if the adult woman in question is his parishioner or in a pastoral counseling relation to him), it’s a problem with different implications than the problem of Catholic priests molesting minors. When priests have sex with adults, it indicates that - surprise! - it’s really, really hard for people to spend a lifetime never having sex in the presence of willing potential partners. And that something that’s hard for even highly motivated men who have a special sense of vocation may be even harder for less motivated men.
But saying that it’s hard for most men to never have sex isn’t at all the same thing as saying that most men are so lacking in self-control that they’re bound to rape, abuse, or molest children if they don’t get their outlets.
So I take it sophonisba is against the legalisation of prostitution?
I’m not sure why you take it that she is, since as far as I can see she didn’t say one way or the other. At any rate, count me with Arwen as not having taken this as an argument about whether prostitution should be legalized.
Personally, I favor the Swedish model where prostitutes are decriminalized and pimping remains illegal. But I’d have a very different attitude toward someone who wants prostitution legalized and regulated out of concern for the trafficked women and teenaged runaways who get abused in the current, illegal prostitution market than I do toward someone who wants prostitution legalized because men need an outlet and we don’t much care what happens to prostitutes because they aren’t smart and classy enough to care about. Do you see the difference?
when my boyfriend needs sex and i’m not in the mood to do him no need for there to be a crisis. he can just go down to whoretown and get some.
Oh, go ahead and give your boy friend permission to start attending some swinger parties. Maybe you can even accompany him with your whip when you’re in the mood. Lots of people there interested in “no strings” sex.
(OK, I’m not fully serious there - my sexual morals are actually more conservative than that - but I’m just throwing that out to point out that there’s nothing in the current legal status of prostitution that really obliges you to give your boy friend daily bjs if you don’t want to.)
‘Rhonda, I’m sorry — you’re crossing a line here. Advocating child prostitution is an unacceptable ideological position here. As they say, you’ve gone “beyond the pale”. Future comments along this line will get you banned. Whether you’re serious or not, some views — even when expressed without profanity or personal insult — go beyond what I’m willing to tolerate. If you’ve got a problem with that, email me, but don’t discuss it on this blog.’
whether i’m serious or not? i’m serious. i’ve meant every word of every post. and 12-13 year olds are ‘children’ only as a misleading legal construct. did you read my post? it’s legal in spain for 12-13 year olds to have sex. so by your logic child sex is legal in spain? by your logic just a generation or so ago in america when many women got married at 12 or 13 and consummated it that was child sex? women are already in puberty at that age so to call them ‘children’ {meaning pre-pubescent} is not accurate in a biological sense only in silly legalese. i agree that non-prostitute women should wait longer before even thinking about sex {til 18 or a little older}. but the age of consent should be lower for prostitutes. i would elaborate further about my opinions and the reasons for them but you told me to buzz off.
no need to ban. like jen i won’t post here if you don’t want me here. but you know what? with your attitude you’re going to end up with an echo chamber here. you admitted that your blog isn’t big or important. well. giving the cold shoulder to everyone you disagree with could have something to do with that!
that said thanks to everyone for the interesting discussions. that includes you hugo. i just hope you know that if you keep getting rid of posters you disagree with this blog will become a cyber wasteland. also isn’t it ironic that a self-labeled ‘pro-feminist’ man is so quick to tell women with opinions to f*ck off?
take care!
rhonda j
I said: “‘If anything, rape is over-reported’
To which rhondaj responded: “there’s no reason to believe that though. there’s a lot more evidence that it’s under-reported. as jen said men have sexual urges that get frustrated if not met. i will say that c*ck-teasing is even more under-reported than rape tho. way more.”
Actually, there is reason to believe that rape is over-reported. FBI and DOJ stats are for reporting, which when you compare them to convictions show that reporting far oupaces convictions. I realize that some rapists are probably falsely found innocent due to lack of evidence, but various Innocence Project have used DNA evidence to show that an alarming number of men are in prison for rapes that they didn’t commit (sorting out the numbers of falsely acquitted from the falsely convicted is an ongoing, highly-charged and highly-politicized effort). Couple that with evidence from studies showing that from 20% to 60% of rapes reported by women never happened (there’s a famous Air Force study showing the ~60% number) and one gets a clear picture that men are not the uncontrollable raping animals that we’re often portrayed to be.
And I agree with the other person that comparing c*ck teasing to rape is inappropriate. It’s like comparing a simple threat of a slap with a vicious, violent beating.
Rhonda, goodbye. You will find strong allies in the Netherlands, I’m told, who share your views on the legalization of sex with underage prostitutes. Perhaps they blog.
Mr. Bad and everyone else, let’s stay away from rape statistics (or even worse, opening up domestic violence statistics) and stay on the original topic of the post — the capacity of men to exercise sexual self-control.
I’ve been checking up on this periodically, and I wanted to say: thanks Hugo, for what I considered to be a strong point against the myth of male weakness.
Also, to some folks: rape has nothing, zero, nada, nilch to do with sex. Rape is about power and control. Rape is exercising dominance over someone you consider a lesser being- that’s why prostitutes get raped, not for sex, because obviously that could be purchased; but because the people who rape them don’t view them as human in a way. That’s why I’m against prostitution, because it sets up a ridiculous underclass.
I’ve been checking up on this periodically, and I wanted to say: thanks Hugo, for what I considered to be a strong point against the myth of male weakness.
Well… taking into account as some others have noted, that men do have sexual needs and WILL be affected if they get frustrated, if you want to decide to call that weakness, fine, but it’s not a myth. Nothing Hugo said would convince anyone with an ounce of knowledge on this subject otherwise.
Also, to some folks: rape has nothing, zero, nada, nilch to do with sex.
Again as others have explained this is not true. It’s silly. Rape has lots to do with sex: lust is often one of the motives, at least one SEXUAL action tends to be involved, and as already noted many people find “rape themes” hot enough there is considerable demand for that kind of porn. And for some odd reason, this might surprise you, but people who use sex slaves or rape prostitutes ARE GETTING OFF ON IT SEXUALLY. Therefore, it is sexual. Also, sexual frustration often IS a factor in rape — for one thing, one who hasn’t gotten enough sex for too long, and gets sexually provoked, may get the overpowering urge to want it RIGHT NOW.
And are you really so unlearned about this subject that you are unaware of the existence of sexual sadism, that is, SEXUALLY GETTING OFF ON SADISM, of which rape can be an expression? And the fact that sadism and frustration and revenge can go hand in hand?
Rape is about power and control. Rape is exercising dominance over someone you consider a lesser being
You’re trying to set up a false dilemma. Power and control and dominance often ARE sexual. That’s why rape is a common sexual fantasy (including in women, intriguingly).
- that’s why prostitutes get raped, not for sex, because obviously that could be purchased; but because the people who rape them don’t view them as human in a way.
So the people who only pay them (or their pimps/pimpstresses) DO view them that way? Society as a whole tends to look down at prostitutes. Again you are wrong of course, it has to do with sex AND power AND humiliation and whatnot, it’s not one or the other.
That’s why I’m against prostitution, because it sets up a ridiculous underclass.
Nothing’s ridiculous about the advantages it can give to people who benefit from it. As others have argued better there outlets can provide many benefits.
Similarly, there are perfectly workable options for men who enjoy particular sex acts their girlfriends/wives don’t like– either break up and find someone who does like those acts, or learn to enjoy other things. There’s no reason to involve prostitutes (who may not enjoy those acts any more than you do, but that’s okay when it’s them and not you, right?).
Read my posts about men forming relationships just for sex. I see trouble ahead…..
And, learn to enjoy something else?
This is like someone asking a homosexual to just stop being one.
Read my posts about men forming relationships just for sex.
I’m not saying form relationships just for sex. I’m saying that if, for example, one really can’t live without receiving oral sex on a regular basis, one ought to find a partner who, in addition to being compatible in other ways, enjoys or at least doesn’t mind giving oral sex. It’s common sense. If sexual compatibility is a major priority, seek it out and don’t settle for anything less. If it isn’t, learn to deal with the difficulties that come with not being totally sexually compatible with one’s partner. Adult relationships involve compromise in lots of areas, and sex is often one of them– why is this suddenly such a threatening idea?
Or, hey, there’s even a third option– have an open relationship, so you’re not depending on one person for all your sexual fulfillment. Makes a lot of sense for those who aren’t morally or emotionally bothered by the idea. Point is, there are lots of options for someone in Rhonda’s boyfriend’s situation, and to claim that prostitution is the only possible solution to his terrible conundrum is a little ridiculous and short-sighted.
This is like someone asking a homosexual to just stop being one.
No, it isn’t. I think the vast majority of people are capable of experiencing pleasure from more than one kind of sexual act. If there really was a guy who couldn’t get off from anything but oral sex, I would certainly suggest that he take my first option (find someone who likes giving it).
And, learn to enjoy something else?
LOL
Yup, that’s like a man demanding to his wife “learn to enjoy something else — that is, learn to enjoy having sex with me ten times as much as we already do.”
I also got a laugh when they suggested “break up” like that’s no big deal. Many of us love our partners, you know. Speaking of which…
Read my posts about men forming relationships just for sex.
Yes that’s a common problem but you also have relationships that are sincerely formed for more reasons than sex but there happens to be an imbalance in sexual needs. The usefulness of prostitution applies here too.
As it does from so many other angles and so many other ways too.
Point is, there are lots of options for someone in Rhonda’s boyfriend’s situation, and to claim that prostitution is the only possible solution to his terrible conundrum is a little ridiculous and short-sighted.
There are lots of options, but prostitution is by far the best one. You’re being a little ridiculous by not thinking this through very well yet proclaiming that you have better solutions. There are other options but they can’t remedy the situation anywhere near so well as prostitution can. I’m wondering if you even read through Rhonda’s posts. She made it clear that they don’t want the level of unmanageable stress and conflict they would get from what you’re calling an “open relationship”. Using hookers is different partly because they’re a lot less likely to provide a real threat to the relationship. Who’s going to dump his girlfriend for a prostitute?
Yup, that’s like a man demanding to his wife “learn to enjoy something else — that is, learn to enjoy having sex with me ten times as much as we already do.”
Except that Keri was offering “learn to enjoy something else” as one alternative, while your hypothetical man is demanding it, and demanding that his wife be the one to do all the adjusting. Lots of couples do “learn to enjoy something else” to become more compatible; this works best if both of them are doing some of the learning.
I also got a laugh when they suggested “break up” like that’s no big deal.
Well, it is the most common result of your partner finding out that you’ve been visiting prostitutes. So, if sexual compatibility is really important to you, you’re best off screening for that early on. Picking incompatible partners and hoping they’ll be OK with you visiting prostitutes isn’t a strategy likely to be very successful. I suppose you could pick incompatible partners and limit yourself to the ones who are willing to agree up front to you visiting prostitutes, but doesn’t that limit your pool at least as much as screening for compatibility up front?
There are lots of options, but prostitution is by far the best one.
OK, you believe that visiting prostitutes is more desirable than all available alternatives. That’s a choice. That’s an entirely different thing from men being unable to control themselves and requiring prostitutes, or they’ll do horrible things to those of us who don’t want to be prostitutes.
I’m wondering if you even read through Rhonda’s posts.
I sure have. Like Jen’s, they were dripping with contempt for prostitutes, and very clear that they were less deserving of consideration than other women. Pardon me if I consider an alternative that involves creating an underclass of despised women unethical.
Any ethical model for dealing with prostitution (whatever its ultimate legal status) ought to at least start by including the understanding that prostitutes also count for something.
Ah, yes, Rhonda’s boyfriend sounds like a charming individual. I can see why he’s a great catch, and why Rhonda should be so intent on keeping him happy with prostitutes. *gick*.
Although it is patently ridiculous that men are childish boy-things who must throw tantrums and demand some *other* person take care of their physical needs, if that’s what I believed then I’d be taking the third option. Rather than trying to build a life with a sub-human, unthinking puppet who is at the childish whim of his body chemistry, I would choose to live a life with good friends and pursuit of interests that doesn’t contain a romantic partner. In fact, I did make that choice at one point; and 6 months later met my husband, who is obviously a mythological creature to the thinking of these sad, man-hating souls. (Because mark my words: this is man-hatred, to suggest on any level that male lust unfulfilled will turn to pedophilia…)
Of course, if *I* were also impulse-control poor, non-negotiating girl-child at the whims of my own needs (fiscal? what *do* people get out of these arrangements?), then this may be an acceptable tradeoff. And two users together are better than two users apart, I suppose, although certainly repugnant.
Although it’s still a problem for the stigmatized women who are beneath consideration of humanity… *squik*
There are lots of options, but prostitution is by far the best one.
Sure.. especially if you like passing on STD’s to your partner.. I can see where that might cause hard (sorry) feelings…
I’m wondering if you even read through Rhonda’s posts. She made it clear that they don’t want the level of unmanageable stress and conflict they would get from what you’re calling an “open relationship”.
Yes, I saw that. Which is why you’ll notice that I didn’t bring up open relationships when I was actually addressing Rhonda herself; I brought them up after she’d left the conversation, when I was speaking more generally about situations like hers.
Using hookers is different partly because they’re a lot less likely to provide a real threat to the relationship. Who’s going to dump his girlfriend for a prostitute?
Oh, yes, ha ha, who indeed? It’s not like prostitutes are human or anything! Not like they’re real women with personalities and desires and relationships of their own– they’re just one-dimensional sex toys who exist only as outlets for male lust, right?
Like Lynn, I can’t support your “best option” if it inherently involves casting prostitutes as lesser beings so that men can use them for sex without threatening their relationships. In theory, I have no problem with a relationship model in which men or women seek casual sex outside of their primary relationship– my sexual morality doesn’t require monogamy, only honesty. I do have a problem with the idea of denying certain women their humanity and the basic respect they deserve, treating them as if they’re only good to be used for sex, just so selfish men don’t have to deal with the complex and imperfect reality of adult sexual relationships.
If you want to have sex outside of your (romantically monogamous) relationship, you have to deal with the fact that it may eventually threaten, change, have some effect on that relationship. It’s that simple. You don’t get to treat a group of people as less than human to get around that inevitability.
Sure.. especially if you like passing on STD’s to your partner.. I can see where that might cause hard (sorry) feelings…
Yeah, but under the right system prostitutes would be frequently tested. Under the present system most married people cheat and most of the people they cheat with didn’t take an STD test first. Talk about hard (sorry) feelings…
Like Lynn, I can’t support your “best option” if it inherently involves casting prostitutes as lesser beings so that men can use them for sex without threatening their relationships..
I do have a problem with the idea of denying certain women their humanity and the basic respect they deserve, treating them as if they’re only good to be used for sex,
you don’t get to treat a group of people as less than human
Well certainly prostitutes are treated as an underclass. But who all is doing it? Men who frequent prostitutes are no different from guys who go buy gas at the gas station. You go in, pay for the gas, pump said gas.. and you are on your way. Men are not degrading or treating them as lesser beings. They are buying a commodity. The men are not using them for sex any more than the women are using the men for money. They’re not having sex with them because they think they’re some “underclass” or worse.
Women on the other hand, seem to be more likely to treat prostitutes as lesser humans, and Rhonda’s attitude towards them is pretty much universal with the women I know. They both despise what they do, and who they are for what they do. If they are fully human, why is that?
Maybe you are different. Maybe to you, they’re just people with poor choices in career goals. Fine. That’s the way I pretty much look at it too. Their choices seem foolish, but it’s their choice and their life to live.
If you want to change society’s attitude towards prostitutes, start with women.
Oh and point taken about just finding a mistress on the side to help you with your sexual incompatibilities. Great idea. I’ll mention it to my wife tonight at dinner and see if she’d go for something like that..
I’ll let yall know how that goes tomorrow.. if I can still type with my fingers..
Women on the other hand, seem to be more likely to treat prostitutes as lesser humans
If you want to change society’s attitude towards prostitutes, start with women.
They’re not having sex with them because they think they’re some “underclass” or worse.
The facts are dead against you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution#Violence_against_prostitutes
The filth that’s been spewed in this thread by some women is inexcusable. I would find it difficult, however, to assert that the Jens of the world hate prostitutes more than the people who actually, you know, beat, rape and kill them. Rapists don’t target prostitutes more than any other group of women because they respect them so much, okay?
And in this thread alone, Mr. Bad has endorsed Jen’s loathsome comments, and perplexed (the one who likes the word “use” for prostitutes, by the way) have been just as bad as Rhonda. They’re both men.
If they are fully human, why is that?
(i.e., why are some women hostile and hateful towards prostitutes?)
Uzzah, when was the last time someone called you a “whore” because you have sex? Jokes don’t count.
When was the last time someone called you a “whore” because of the way you were dressed?
When was the last time someone pulled up beside you and offered you twenty bucks for a blowjob because you were outside of your house at night?
When was the last time somebody called you a “whore” just because they were mad at you, in a situation that had nothing to do with selling sex or anything else?
When was the last time somebody referred to you as a “whore” when they’d never even met you, just because they wanted to insult your son or your brother?
You know the old joke with the punchline, “We’ve already established what you are, we’re just haggling over the price”? Who is that joke insulting? Hint: not prostitutes.
However, there are substantial differences in rates of victimization between street prostitutes and indoor prostitutes who work as escorts, call girls, or in brothels and massage parlors (Weitzer 2000, 2005). Perpetrators include violent clients, pimps, and corrupt law-enforcement officers. Prostitutes (particularly those engaging in street prostitution) are also sometimes the targets of serial killers, who may consider them easy targets, or use the religious and social stigma associated with prostitutes as justification for their murder.
204 per 100000? Make it legal and that number would be greatly reduced. I’m all for getting these women (and girls) off the street.
I would find it difficult, however, to assert that the Jens of the world hate prostitutes more than the people who actually, you know, beat, rape and kill them.
Well sure.. I suppose so. But how about the vast majority if men who fork over their money and “use” prostitutes, yet don’t rape kill or beat them. Using my gas station example, that’s like saying I “used” the gas station owner for buying his gas. Rather hyperbolic dontcha think?
Really.. you are, you know, following your usual pattern of picking statistically insignificant portion of men (who are certified psycho) and painting the entire patriarchy with them. Now if you are saying all us men hate prostitutes because we can have sex with them. Well.. I don’t quite know what to say to that. Well, nothing serious anyway.
The filth that’s been spewed in this thread by some women is inexcusable.
Yes, absolutely. I agree.. But these women are not unique. In fact, the attitude is prevelent. Why is that? And what can we do to change that? Sisterhood seems way easier if one of you is not a prostitute.
Well certainly prostitutes are treated as an underclass. But who all is doing it? Men who frequent prostitutes are no different from guys who go buy gas at the gas station.
I wasn’t addressing men who frequent prostitutes. I was addressing the commenters in this thread– Jen, Rhonda, and now t.k.– who have made it clear that they think prostitutes are subhuman. Some feminists think it’s always inherently dehumanizing to trade money for sex; I’m not necessarily one of them. I do think it’s dehumanizing to say, as t.k. did, that prostitutes don’t threaten romantic relationships because no man would ever even think of developing a relationship with a prostitute. If one believes that even casual sex with strangers has the potential to threaten a romantically monogamous relationship, why would sex with a prostitute be any different unless one casts the prostitute as entirely unworthy of any sort of emotional connection?
Oh and point taken about just finding a mistress on the side to help you with your sexual incompatibilities. Great idea. I’ll mention it to my wife tonight at dinner and see if she’d go for something like that..
This isn’t the topic of the thread and I don’t want to contribute to drift, but I’ll quickly say that your wife doesn’t speak for all women and the fact that she might not be comfortable with non-monogamy doesn’t mean it isn’t a workable option for plenty of people. I’m certainly going to suggest it as preferable to having sex with people one doesn’t even consider human just to “vent one’s lust.”
Which is why you’ll notice that I didn’t bring up open relationships when I was actually addressing Rhonda herself; I brought them up after she’d left the conversation, when I was speaking more generally about situations like hers.
I think you’ll find her concerns apply more generally to people like her and situations like hers. People are jealous.
Now if you are saying all us men hate prostitutes because we can have sex with them. Well.. I don’t quite know what to say to that. Well, nothing serious anyway.
You can’t say anything to it because I didn’t say it. Nor did I say anything remotely similar to it. Nor did you quote anything I said that might explain to me why you think I might believe it. What are you talking about?
You want to believe that Jen and Rhonda are more representative of women in general than Lynn, Arwen, Keri, and me, go ahead. You have not offered any support for this belief. You also haven’t seemed to note that the people in this thread offering an impassioned defense of prostitutes’ essential human dignity are women.
I did not say that all men hate prostitutes. I am saying, first of all, that while the number of women who hate them may be larger than the number of men, although neither you nor I know that to be true, and you have offered no evidence, the men who hate them hate them much, much, much more. And there is evidence for this, unless you are challenging my statements that the people who rape and beat and murder prostitutes are overwhelmingly men, and that men who rape and and murder women disproportionately choose to commit these acts against prostitutes instead of other women.
Psychopaths may be born with their disorders, but they are are not born with hatred towards particular professions. Nobody is. Society directs and refines their psychopathy, and it directs it at women, and secondarily, straight at prostitutes. Men don’t escape this sickness any more than women do.
Uzzah, when was the last time someone called you a “whore” because you have sex? Jokes don’t count.
When was the last time someone called you a “whore” because of the way you were dressed?
Well I certainly have seen people that hate women (or worse, a class of women) for less.. Still kindof lame tho.
Oh and point taken about just finding a mistress on the side to help you with your sexual incompatibilities. Great idea. I’ll mention it to my wife tonight at dinner and see if she’d go for something like that..
I’ll let yall know how that goes tomorrow.. if I can still type with my fingers..
I disagree with much of what you say but I gotta give credit where it’s due…
While some women won’t allow any sex of any kind outside the marriage, from everything I know they’re way more likely give thumbsup to using “subhuman” (as people keep saying) prostitutes than keeping an “elegant mistress.” Mistresses bring with them much more drama and intrigue (of the bad kind). Some guys end up marrying mistresses; they hardly ever marry the more stigmatized sort of prostitute.
I agree with several other posters if the stigma were taken away from prostitution it would lose much of its usefulness. I forgot where it’s at on this long page (and my Find isn’t working right now) but there was a good post about how use of prostitutes could be legal without the prostitutes themselves being part of “polite society”. That would be the best combination.
PS: It’s true that lots of violence against prostitutes is by men but I’ve read about women doing it too. Liz Bathory comes to mind. There was also an interesting article about how Jack The Ripper might have actually been female.
Folks, thread drift is getting out of hand. Open marriages and prostitution are not on topic. I will close the thread if we don’t get back narrowly on to male weakness, biology, and will.
correction
I agree with several other posters if the stigma were taken away from prostitution it would lose much of its usefulness.
To be more specific (and accurate) I should have written “from prostitutes“. The difference is just a few letters but it is an important distinction.
T.K. this warning about thread drift means you too — I assume you didn’t see my previous warning before you posted…
keri, you say :-
I’m not saying form relationships just for sex.
Then you go on to say:
I’m saying that if, for example, one really can’t live without receiving oral sex on a regular basis, one ought to find a partner who, in addition to being compatible in other ways, enjoys or at least doesn’t mind giving oral sex. It’s common sense. If sexual compatibility is a major priority, seek it out and don’t settle for anything less. If it isn’t, learn to deal with the difficulties that come with not being totally sexually compatible with one’s partner. Adult relationships involve compromise in lots of areas, and sex is often one of them– why is this suddenly such a threatening idea?
So you are saying if you can’t get sex, find it in a relationship. As has been pointed out many times, bad relationships often arise from bad reasons why they are formed in the first place. And bad relationships can have any number of miserable consequences.
Or are you saying it’s OK to hook up with strangers for sex? You know, strangers who aren’t regularly tested for STDs? Oh wait a minute - that happens when you do ’stranger sex’ or go to illegal prostitutes! Wait a minute again, what if prostitution was legal and prostitutes were tested for STDs regularly?
This whole thing about prostitutes being ’sub-human’ - it’s feminists who think this. Look at the union who represent prostitutes (I think they went to the last NOW meeting) - they actively want to protect their jobs and industry from feminists. They want a cleaner, more regulated industry.
If you keep criminalising prostitutes, the problem gets worse - no STD checks, more freelancers on the streets because if it’s illegal it needs to be better hidden.
And this talk of ‘alternatives’ to legal prostitution. Nobody has actually put forward a viable alternative! The ‘keep it in your pants’ method when applied to millions of men is laughable. If feminists are going to criticise the idea of legal prostitution, they need to come up with concrete, alternative measures that would work across a diverse population.
This is just sad. Men have 20-30 times more testostorone on average, and there are actually deluded souls who deny that this will affect sexual behavior? The folks who posted that sexual outlets would be useful are spot on.
Arwen:
“Someone has sold you a bill of goods justifying their own sociopathy. People who cannot empathise exist, but it is not lust’s fault: lust doesn’t suddenly strip men of their humanity. I have had men stop in the middle of sex of their own volition because they were worried that I wasn’t having fun.”
This comes across to me as pretty naive. Just because he’s concerned about your feelings (or at least makes a show of it) doesn’t mean he be the same way toward every woman. Do you think he’d treat a prostitute the same way? Probably not. When law and order are absent, like in total war and feral cities, rape is a very common thing. If “sociopathy” is to blame then men in general are sociopaths when they can get away with it. The “cannot empathise” thing smacks of a strawman too, because there’s also sadism: one can feel another’s pain and *like* it. Anyone who has ever gone to a public school (or isn’t blind) should know that being nasty toward other people is common behavior…
R. Williams, you make the serious mistake of confusing bad male behavior (a reality that I readily admit exists) with biological inevitability. I see countless young men in their teens and twenties who, despite apparently raging hormones, exercise self-restraint. The tremendous power of testosterone doesn’t trump their ability to see ALL women as human beings (not merely “nice girls”). Are they the majority of young men? Perhaps not. But then again, athletes who have learned to run long distances aren’t the norm — but we are all capable of mastering the imperious demands of our flesh. God gave us a reptilian brain, a mammalian brain, and a cerebral cortex to rule the other two. I live it, and I see other young men live it at the age in which the demands of their bodies are at their peak.
As for outlets, the good Lord gave most of us right (or left) hands which are remarkably well-positioned to reach the genitals and provide relief, if one chooses to see relief as necesary.
In my avocational work with teen girls and boys in youth groups
That sounds super-hot.