The indispensable Figleaf (not necessarily a work-safe site for all) has a terrific commentary up today on the recent study, reported in the Guardian, on men who visit prostitutes.
Fig quotes one of the more troubling passages of the Julie Bindel piece:
One of the most interesting findings was that many believed men would “need” to rape if they could not pay for sex on demand. One told me, “Sometimes you might rape someone: you can go to a prostitute instead.” Another put it like this: “A desperate man who wants sex so bad, he needs sex to be relieved. He might rape.” I concluded from this that it’s not feminists such as Andrea Dworkin and myself who are responsible for the idea that all men are potential rapists – it’s sometimes men themselves.
It’s not hard to see that this belief — part of what I refer to as the myth of male weakness — serves a particularly important self-justifying function. “I need to have sex with prostitutes”, the line goes, “or I might rape.” We see something similar in arguments about pornography, in which men (often husbands or boyfriends) explain that the use of erotica “prevents cheating”. Call it the “You should be bloody grateful that this is all I’m doing” narrative.
Many women who are uncomfortable with their male partners’ porn use (or visits to strip clubs, etc.) tell themselves (and concerned friends) that they’re grateful that their guys “don’t do anything worse.” Perhaps there are some who genuinely believe what the men in the Guardian study claim to believe: that prostitution provides a necessary sexual outlet for fellas whose supposedly insatiable needs cannot be met in any other way. This is the soft bigotry of low expectations writ large, with the twist that the most painful consequences affect those who hold these assumptions — rather than those about whom the expectations are held.
It’s worth noting that the two men quoted in the Bindel piece use the second and third person to describe what “you” or “a desperate man” might do. Perhaps this is a way of claiming cover under the myth of male weakness without risking the sobriquet of a potential rapist. On the other hand, perhaps these lads don’t use the first person because in their hearts, they know it isn’t true. The “prostitution is necessary because otherwise men would rape” thesis is useful enough to be repeated; it is hoped that wives and girlfriends will believe it, and thus co-sign men’s hiring of sex workers as the lesser of two evils. But because these guys know well enough that in their own experience, lust is not a catalyst for rape (anger is, but that’s a different story), they are unwilling to use the first person singular or plural. They want the myth of male weakness to work because it serves their agenda; they know that in their own lives, the myth is oversold. This is cynical, yes, but devastatingly effective.
Until we dismantle the narrative of uncontrollable male sexual desire we cannot build a just and safe world for all.
Interesting article. I think there is a lot to it, but in thinking about this topic, my thoughts go to some of the fringes of male experience.
You see elderly men who may have no one else in their life get picked up for soliciting prostitution when that might be the only way they will ever have sexual intimacy.
You see transients and homeless (the large majority of whom are men) who may have few options besides prostitution.
I agree though it is not a good excuse when it comes to someone in a monogamous relationship. And, I have gone through several periods in my life where I have been celibate. I know it can be done. It is not easy, and I do not look at prostitution as an option.
I also know that, apart from being a weakness, as you call it, the desire (or even NEED) for sexual intimacy can be a very strong urge. As social animals, the important power of that activity should not be underestimated. The need to feel a connection with another person is crucial; the need to feel desired, or desirable, or even acceptable, can be very important to a healthy self-image.
At the same time, for those who are essentially excluded from that activity by class or age (or some other reason), we should not be surprised if anti-social tendencies arise when a basic form of human interaction is missing in their lives. That may very well lead to the anger you mention.
-Jut
“the need to feel desired, or desirable, or even acceptable, can be very important to a healthy self-image.”
What about ugly women? Do they have a “right” to sex and desire from some guy?
And what if we buy this logic and make prostitution legal? What about men who are abusive or horrible in some way other than the standard “couldn’t find sex elsewhere”? Some men like the “girlfriend experience” — what about men who like the “rape experience” of choking a woman who’s screaming “no”? After all, these are the men this argument depends upon satisfying.
Are these violence-prone men “owed” sex with a prostitute? Can the prostitute never say no, because the man wanted sex and would rape someone otherwise? Doesn’t that make prostitutes slaves?
And how about gay men — are they owed sex, too? Are the men who make this argument willing to give up sex to them to keep them from raping other men? I kind of doubt it.
If you convince yourself that you are weak, you will be weak. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, in a sense, the myth of male weakness is true (though its inevitability is not). As long as men keep convincing themselves and other men that they need to have females provide them with sexual release (consenting or not, through a business transaction or not), then men will continue to rape and visit prostitutes. Those will not be the only reasons men rape and visit prostitutes, but when you construct a narrow worldview for yourself and automatically exclude other possible ways of living, you will live that way.
The lie isn’t that male weakness exists. The lie is that it has to or that it does for all men.
Hugo,
I think you’re generally a bit overextending your myth of male weakness theory, but on this one I’m with you. There is very little evidence of rape being connected to sexual dissatisfaction. The “valve” theory of prostitution is bollocks.
However, I do believe that two adults who are suspected to be able to consent to being sexual, are also able to decide for themselves what they see as a good enough reason to consent to sex - and for some, that reason may be monetary. I don’t need a “justification” for men to go to prostitutes, it should simply be seen as another form of sexual expression, for both sex workers and clients. It’s about freedom, not about prevention of rape.
That said, there are prostitutes doing quite a bit of social work - having sex with, say, disabled people who may otherwise never experience sexual touch. As there is both a positive right to sexuality and a right to be free from other people’s sexuality, in some cases sexual attraction may not be sufficient a currency to balance supply and demand. In those cases, prostitutes are, very likely, performing a social service. In all other cases, their work, as their clients use of their services, is an expression of their right of self-determination. And I mean that literally, while sex work, including prostitution, should be, in my opinion, free and legal everywhere, the punishment for forcing people to work in that line of business, should be tough.
And all f that has nothing to do with men not being able to restrain themselves.
oldfeminist,
“What about ugly women? Do they have a “right” to sex and desire from some guy?”
quite a number of them, who can afford it, are buying cruise tickets to latin America, if I’m not entirely mistaken….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_sex_tourism
I was always told as a young girl to be careful of how I act around men/boys because sometimes they couldn’t help themselves. As a little girl I was taught to fear older men because some of them liked little girls. This has cause paranoia somewhat in my dating life today and I always question is he capable of raping me. Thanks for this post because I thought I was just weird.I believe in waiting to be in a committed relationship before having sex. If that relationship is with a guy it usually takes longer for the commitment, which means I hold out on my goodies that much longer. This hold out always makes nervous because I do believe that if a man wants something he will take it.. Good post!
I don’t quite understand how sex and social interraction became conflated. I would concede that people suffer immenselt without regular interraction with other humans, but sex? A complete lack of sexual contact can and frequently does exist alongside a lack of social interraction, but the lack of sex isn’t the problem. A man with friends who continually strikes out at the bar might not be having an enjoyable life, but I can’t imagine it being something to be concerned about. A guy with no friends who never goes out has problems, but those problems go far deeper than a need for sex.
Rootless
Hugo addresses that question a bit here: http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/04/07/my-wife-is-my-best-friend-the-guy-code-and-the-inability-to-get-naked-without-getting-naked/ - it’s not particularly uncommon for men to only have any emotional intimacy with people they also have sex with (though some of us manage to admit we have feelings to our mothers, grandmothers, et cetera. ;) ) Beyond that, a lot of people’s self-worth is pretty strongly tied up in whether anyone will sleep with them, et cetera.
@ Brian
I’m a guy and I understand why it is preferable to have a girlfriend than to simply have a bunch of platonic friends. Nor do I expect platonic friendships to really make up for the intimacy between a romantic partners. My point remains that a person not having sex doesn’t sound like much of a problem. A person who has no friends and doesn’t interact with others much is actually a cause for concern. The two aren’t mutually exclusive of course. If a person has both problems, the lack of sex is really tangential to their real concerns. Apologies for any lack of clarity, as both comments were typed on a cumbersome cellphone leyboard.
Rootless,
sorry, I don’t understand what your point is? Hugo’s point was that it’s bollocks to assume men who don’t get to have sex will eventually be biologically forced to rape, and that’s, indeed, plain bs. And yes, the life of someone without sex and friends is probably not much fun.
“Hugo’s point was that it’s bollocks to assume men who don’t get to have sex will eventually be biologically forced to rape, and that’s, indeed, plain bs.”
I agree it is BS! It’s very sad indeed that these beliefs still persist and continue.
“Nor do I expect platonic friendships to really make up for the intimacy between a romantic partners.”
Sadly many people are quite capable of having sex without feeling much in the way of emotional intimacy. Some people use sexual intimacy as a way to not feel and exploit others in the process.
“My point remains that a person not having sex doesn’t sound like much of a problem.”
It may not be much of a problem given that their reasons are likely invidual and personal.
“A person who has no friends and doesn’t interact with others much is actually a cause for concern.”
Maybe and maybe not. It depends entirely on the types of social interactions they have. Quantity is not indicative of quality. Some types of friends/associations can be quite destructive and some people adapt better to more solitude and privacy than others. Even people with a greater need for solitude do require social interaction. Social interactions providing balance and appropriate boundaries is key.
@ Sam
Sorry! I hadn’t realized it, but I was making points in an argument I had wanted to make in a discussion neither online or technically on this topic (terrorism I suppose I should mention). I disagree with neither you nor Hugo. Though I’m curious about that note about the disabled and prostitution. And having gone thouroughly off topic, I’m ducking out.
This hold out always makes nervous because I do believe that if a man wants something he will take it..
Fallon, not all men “take it”. Some simply dump their girlfriends, if the views on sex are too different. Some wait, especially if they’re in love too. Many young men talk about not waiting too much on forum, but then add about some special woman they were ready to wait for.
If I believed that “taking it”, it would mean that all men are rapists, horrible people with whom I would want nothing to do.
Rootless,
about the disability and prostitution topic - I’m aware of a German documentary on the subject that has been shown at festivals. It’s available on the web at http://disgenderbility.wordpress.com/ - I’m not sure about English subtitles though. There is a trailer on youtube, but subtitles are in German -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KkTh3QxsJE
I find it both interesting and sickening that we men seemingly have “rights” be they sexual or other that trump those of others. The necessity of prostitution to prevent rape is a cousin of the requirements of the Female partner to give whatever emotional support the Man may “need” or desire.
The man has seemingly No responsibilities to respect others. These rights extend beyond the sexual/ directed at women. “Respect” also is used as an excuse most commonly for men physically attacking other men.
Hopefully over time we men will learn that we are part of “community” and that we should support women, children and other men. At such a time we may be able to lean upon other men for support and “love” - which has nothing to do with our sexual orientation. Thanks!
Interesting post, Hugo. I thought I knew what kind of response I’d write when I clicked through to leave a comment — and then I read the variety of comments and realized that maybe you’re not saying what I think you’re saying? Certainly your assumptions may not be what I think they are. So I’m going to try and spell out a lot of what I say as clearly as I can — sorry if it seems patronizing, I’m just trying to ensure that we’re on the same page.
By the way: I can’t tell what your opinions on sex work are from this piece, and commenters appear to have read you in a variety of ways. How do you feel about sex work? Do you think there’s anything wrong with it? Do you think it should remain illegal? The article you link has a lot of really unpleasant turns of phrase re: sex work that I bet folks like Audacia Ray, my favoritest sex work activist, would take issue with (for example: you do not goddamn well “buy” a woman when you hire a sex worker; you buy sex, and the woman remains her own damn property) but you didn’t call those out or even mention them, which makes me suspect that you’re not very into sex workers’ rights. Am I wrong?
Overall I agree with your post, I think, especially about the existence of the “You should be bloody grateful that this is all I’m doing” narrative — I’ve thought about this a lot, because this whole idea of male weakness, of men having “awful” desires that are only barely controlled (or are outright created, or set off) by sex workers or pornography or whatever, is one of the ideas used to shame sexuality in general and particularly BDSM.
I’ve been touching a lot on toxic expectations of masculinity lately in my own writing — for instance, I discussed how men are expected to “always want” sex in my recent CarnalNation piece “Sexual ABCs in Africa Part 1: Abstinence”. And in my last blog post, I included these paragraphs:
I clearly remember the sexual anxiety from my undergraduate days. For one thing, I had no real idea of what my sexual needs were; I knew they weren’t being met, but I tried not to think about it because I didn’t even know where to start, so thinking about how I wasn’t getting what I wanted just made me feel awkward and confused, like I’d failed as a liberated woman, plus I thought my boyfriends would resent me if I said something like “I’m not satisfied and I need to explore more, though I have no idea what direction to go in — will you help me?”,** and anyway I figured that the sex I was having was good enough. I mean, at least I was having sex, right? At least I had a boyfriend, right? And since I’d been deemed Worthy Of Having Sex And A Boyfriend, my first responsibility was to Please My Man, right? I clearly remember feeling sick and hurt whenever I watched porn because I knew it wasn’t what I wanted, and yet I couldn’t believe that my boyfriends — who I knew were watching porn, and were all watching the same porn, because everyone knows all men watch the same porn, right? — I couldn’t believe that my boyfriends were happily “settling” for me, if those images were what they chose to get off to when they were alone. I couldn’t believe that I would still be desirable to a man who was used to porn. I couldn’t believe that a man wouldn’t secretly be let down by me in bed, because I couldn’t “match up” to women in porn. And I therefore felt like there was a cage of social pressure closing around me, stifling me: telling me that I had to “perform” like women in the porn I saw, whether I liked it or not; telling me that the only way to be good in bed was to act the way porn women did, even if it didn’t feel like that behavior was right for me at all.
It was awful. It hurt. A lot. I still remember all that mixed-up anxiety and pain with a shudder.
What cured me was (a) realizing that there are many different kinds of porn out there and that different people have very different tastes; (b) properly exploring my sexual needs — especially my repressed BDSM identity — and learning exactly what it means to have sexual fantasies that hold no bearing on how I feel about my partners. But I still remember feeling sick, watching those porn actresses enact a script that didn’t feel right for me. And I can imagine a very short jump from how I felt then to how a woman might feel, if she thought that “all men want the same thing” and her own sexual preferences didn’t fit that script — how such a woman might feel if she were confronted with women who professed to like those things, and even to like all kinds of crazier more perverted things …. Indeed, women who want “super-perverse” things would probably make such a woman feel like we’re setting an “even worse standard” than porn, because everyone knows that all men (those slobby hungry beasts) will always desire the most perverse possible thing, right? For such a woman, surely other women who enjoy the acts she doesn’t want to do would seem like a pressure-cage; the same way porn felt like a pressure-cage for me, once upon a time.
So. Firstly, there is a troubling and inaccurate universality about the way male desire is framed: all men want the same thing. Secondly, this universality is often cast in terms of male “perversion” or insatiability: not only do all men want the same thing, but they want the most “perverted” thing they can get their hands on.
Which means that the efforts to control especially “dark” or “perverse” male desires, such as BDSM-related ones, are cast in a way that implies Men Must Be Protected From Themselves: they can’t even see those things, because that might Make Them Want To Do Them. Which gets even worse when you assume that no woman would ever do those things joyfully and consensually; because then not only must Men Be Protected From Themselves, but if Men Aren’t So Protected, you are Facilitating (or Creating) Desires That Hurt Women.
I may need to come back to this later, because I feel like I’m not quite getting at what I want to be getting at. But my overall point is always this: the solution is not to restrict sex work or to shame women and men out of either working as sex workers, or hiring them (nor, tangentially, is the solution to shame women and men out of other “problematic” aspects of sexuality, such as BDSM). In fact, the solution is not shame at all. When male sexuality is framed as something always aggressive and dangerous and uncontrollable, that is a problem, but the solution is not to remove anyone’s sexual agency. Having aggressive sex, or sex with sex workers, or whatever, is not the problem; the problems are:
1) The social license to have non-consensual sex that is created by our current dialogues around these issues — “You should be bloody grateful that this is all I’m doing, so I’m going to keep doing it whether you like it or not” should not be any kind of dynamic in any relationship, ever;
2) Failing to know one’s desires and negotiate boundaries explicitly and ahead of time — if men (or anyone else) want to be visiting sex workers, watching porn, whatever, then that is totally fine, but they should be discussing those things with their partners if necessary and making sure that everyone is comfortable and pleased with the situation (including the sex workers, of course).
Oh yeah — here’s a similar study to the one profiled in the article, which I’ve been trying to track:
johnsvoice.ca/
Oh my God. I have now read the study, and while I agree with a lot of your post, this study is absolutely awful.
First of all, take a look at the Acknowledgments: Melissa Farley? Catherine MacKinnon? Those two could find rape and abuse in a Wedgwood tea set.
Secondly: Whole study refers to sex workers as “prostitutes”. I initially thought that was a bias from the article you linked, but nope, it’s in the study. You could not ask for a bigger red flag — anyone who calls a sex worker a prostitute, when they certainly know enough to use the more politically neutral and respectful term, is signaling their refusal to acknowledge that sex workers could possibly have agency.
Thirdly: Let’s look at the quotations they chose to represent how scary sex buyers are. Some of them are indeed discomfiting (although let’s remember that we don’t actually know what questions the researchers asked, so who the hell knows how they got those answers?) but some of them blatantly play into stigma and stereotype. Example: “My favourite experience in prostitution was when she was totally submissive.” Good, so he wants a submissive partner and was willing to pay for it. So … what? This is just more bias from the likes of MacKinnon and Farley, who see consensual BDSM as borderline psychosis.
OH my GOD I can’t go on. I hope the study I linked above does better than this.
Basically, I don’t comment at this blog for a number of reasons, but I did want to answer Clarisse’s point:
“Secondly: Whole study refers to sex workers as “prostitutes”. I initially thought that was a bias from the article you linked, but nope, it’s in the study. You could not ask for a bigger red flag — anyone who calls a sex worker a prostitute, when they certainly know enough to use the more politically neutral and respectful term, is signaling their refusal to acknowledge that sex workers could possibly have agency.”
I’m somebody who is very much on the pro-sex worker/sexual libertarian end of things, and I use the term “prostitute” for a subset of sex workers all the time. “Sex worker” covers a lot of professions, from strippers to porn performers to phone sex operators. “Prostitute” is more specific for sex workers who sell (generally penetrative) sex to customers outside of the context of porn set. In many cases, the term “prostitute” (or “escort”, “call girl”, or “rent boy”) is called for for specificity’s sake and doesn’t necessarily carry any ideological connotation. (The term “prostituted woman”, of course, most certainly does, and really should be avoided unless somebody specifically identifies their circumstances that way.)
Also, Greta Christina just wrote a couple of thoughtful posts on porn within relationships and on monogamy that give a very different take than Hugo’s and, in my opinion, rock. (Sorry, Hugo):
http://blog.blowfish.com/culture/greta-christina-can-watching-porn-be-cheating/
http://blog.blowfish.com/culture/greta-christina-is-monogamy-fair/1217
@Anon E: Interesting. A number of sex workers I know, who would be prostitutes by your definition, consider the term “prostitute” specifically offensive. YMMV.
I heard about Greta Christina’s blog posts. Haven’t read them; I’ll forbear to comment more until I do; but I will say that I don’t like it when people in the sex-positive movement attempt to create new forms of entitlement, or “shoulds”. Trying to redefine the “default” as ethically being able to watch porn within a relationship is as bad as defining the default as not ethically being able to watch porn in a relationship, in my book.
Clarisse,
“Trying to redefine the “default” as ethically being able to watch porn within a relationship is as bad as defining the default as not ethically being able to watch porn in a relationship, in my book.”
Haven’t read the linked posts either, but as for your comment - I don’t think the first option allows to ethically NOT watch porn, while the second option doesn’t. The first includes not watching in the set of ethical options, the second one excludes watching from the set of ethical options. Quite a difference, in my understanding.
But Heather Corinna’s remarks, to which Greta Christina is responding, aren’t saying anything about defining the “default” about watching porn; they’re simply advising a teenage girl who doesn’t like her boy friend watching porn that she’s free to choose only boy friends who won’t watch porn. I can think of things one doesn’t have the “right” to do (say, monitor your boy friend’s net usage to make sure he doesn’t use porn), but choosing only to sleep with people who share your attitudes about something (whether that be porn or crossing strike lines) isn’t one of those things. It’s not as if men who don’t normally watch porn are nonexistent (even if a limited subset of the total set of available men).
@SamSeaborn — Yeah, there’s a difference, but I still think having any default at all is an awful idea. If a person really can’t stand the thought of his/her/hir partner watching porn, then s/he/ze should be able to easily express that without feeling over-anxious about how “but the default is for my partner to watch porn whenever!” That’s what I meant.
“Until we dismantle the narrative of uncontrollable male sexual desire we cannot build a just and safe world for all.”
It is not a narrative. Sexual desire *IS* more difficult to control for men than it is for women, and this manifests in greater numbers of male perpetrator incidents where the control fails.
The actual manifestation of this difference depends on circumstances, among which sheer length of sexual deprivation is the most important: in sexually deprived women the level of sexual tension eventually stabilizes, while in men it just grows indefinitely. It is like carrying a substantial but not overwhelming weight vs. walking with a pebble in your shoe: you can carry the weight indefinitely, but with the pebble in your shoe the pain *will* *eventually* strip you of your mind. While most people will shake the pebble out of their shoe long before that happens, statistically there *will* be *some* who won’t get the opportunity in time.
This difference, albeit dependent on circumstances and not universally manifesting (i.e. the number of men who are in the out-of-their-mind place at any given moment due to sexual deprivation is quite small), is nonetheless fundamental and essential in that women just don’t experience this *indefinite* accumulation of sexual tension, they just… don’t, physiologically. And it is not “cultural” in men, it is not a learned pattern of behavior or lack of learned constraints, it is not “rape culture”, and it is not a “narrative”, not a matter of men “believing” it or “convincing themselves and other men” that it is so. It is as real a difference between men and women as the difference of their genitals.
Knowing that this difference is real does not by itself constitute bigotry. The bigotry is in the unspoken/inferred/alluded addition of “therefore men are inferior”. You are an anti-male bigot *when you believe in the validity of this implication*, even if you actually deny the premise and use the conclusion as a rhetorical scare.
Oh, and the sophistication of those interviewed guys, the truly post-modern awareness and conscious shaping of myths! Is their cunning sociotechnology sufficiently advanced to mandate burning the damn male-fici at the stake?
Thanks for this post, hugo. I agree with you. In fact, I’ve heard it firsthand as an excuse: “Men just have different needs than women, and well, I couldn’t help myself.” It’s a self-perpetuating weakness. And as long as men convince themselves of this, they’ll keep trying to convince women, and when men to fall, they’ll excuse their behavior with this line. So lame.
Clarisse:
Greta Christina clarifies her position here, and I’ve got to say, I think she’s absolutely spot on. She certainly leaves open the idea that if not wanting to partner with somebody who looks at porn, one has every right to, up front, say that’s a condition of taking the relationship any further. But she also says its not a terribly reasonable demand to act as censor of what your partner sees and reads. And I agree – its one thing to want to partner with somebody who shares core values with you, its quite another to go into a relationship with somebody you know doesn’t share those values, and demand adherence as a condition of the relationship. Its exactly the same as the difference between a Christian only having a relationship with other Christians, versus going into a relationship with an atheist and then demanding they get “saved”.
So if GC is calling for a kind of “default”, then I’m all for it. Not being a creepy control freak *should* be the default for relationships, barring of course, “lifestyle BDSM” scenes that are specifically negotiated that way.
Oh, and as for the “sex worker vs prostitute” think, yeah, my mileage does definitely vary. Most of the sex workers I know are from the blogging world, but I have yet to see them take offense at use of the word “prostitute” in proper context. Now in cases where you have some belligerent “abolitionist” type start referring to strippers or porn performers or sex worker activists who haven’t disclosed their specific profession as “prostitutes”, that certainly gets people’s backs up, and for good reason.
BASTA! Are you serious? Really? Newsflash for you:
1) There is such a thing called masturbation.
2) How do you know what women feel?
3) In the past WOMEN were considered to lust much more than men, isn’t it funny? Now men are expected to lust more. Imo both sexes are more or less equal - women are just shamed since birth about their desires and it leaves a mark psychologically. Men are shamed if they don’t lust. Is it a wonder both sexes try to act as expected?
4) What about celibate monks, friars, bishops? Yes, not all of them are really celibate, but I believe at least some of them are.
5) It’s really offensive to imply men rape due to “snapping” I am 100% sure rapists do not rape due to it. Besides, there’re still sex workers, so if you’re a dangerous, disgusting animal about to attack innocent women, you’ve an obligation not to do it. Re sex workers, the myth men who go can’t have sex normally? There was a survey, which proved the opposite. Many of them are even married!
Yes, this is the usual bigoted misandrist retort. Newsflash for you: there is much more to male sexuality and male sexual desire than the release of some liquid.
In this particular case, by what they almost don’t do.
In the past FLIES were considered to have eight legs, but you may actually be onto something:
Back in the past, when women were actually shamed for expressing their sexuality, they were also observed to lust much more than men. Now it is men whose sexuality is being hurdled with a growing system of legal and cultural no-nos and vivisectioned with all the instruments of hostile shaming discourse, and what a strange coincidence, now it is men who “lust more”. Remember physics? A volume of gas under a piston?
At least some people are naturally asexual or almost asexual.
It is only offensive to those who believe that it being true would imply general inferiority of men.
Then in my estimate (which is a fuzzy average of what I remember from various studies) you are misinformed by about 85%.
And there is so much you don’t know about male sexualities…
You didn’t really mean that this obligation is conditional on the availability of sex workers’ services. No question mark.
Basta,
so, well, basically, what you’re suggesting is that, that I, as a guy who was an involuntary celibate until his late 20s (and yes, men are shamed about not having sex, and I usually lie/d about this), should have, at some point, had the uncontrollable urge to jump and rape a random woman? I have no actual evidence for or against your suggestion that sexual desire is harder to control for men, as I would suggest that the greater number of male-perpetrated incidents is very likely a consequence of the average difference in physical strength between men and women. Women, even if they cannot control their sexual urges, would usually hardly be able to rape a man by applying physical strength - not that they would usually need to, but that’s a different story.
Seriously, I don’t doubt that women and men behave differently, and have different roles in human courtship that are, probably, not only culturally formed, and that there are differences in sexual strategies that are rooted in biology. But I think that any evolutionary analysis of sexual choice will indicate pretty clearly that “pleasure”, not “pain” was the evolutionary path of humanity. Rape may be an evolutionary advantage for species with a high polygyny factor and relatively short rearing period - Humans have a relatively low polygyny factor and the longest childhood known in nature. If anything, this indicated how willingness to rape should be considered the opposite of a fitness factor for human evolution.
So, no way. And the statement stands:
“Until we dismantle the narrative of uncontrollable male sexual desire we cannot build a just and safe world for all.”
Since building a just and safe world for all is impossible (on different grounds), then you could also say that there is no compelling reason to dismantle the narrative of uncontrollable male sexual desire.
If the narrative is true/useful/adaptive, then we wouldn’t want to remove it without the “cherry” of that utopian world that we aren’t going to get. If the narrative is false/nonoperative/nonadaptive, then it will eventually fall apart under its own contradictions and we don’t need to waste energy on it.
SamSeaborn, I will wait with writing a response to you until either my response to el-a woman appears, or Hugo acknowledges that he won’t allow it to appear. I lost about an hour writing and rewriting that response and don’t feel like losing another in vain.
Yes, this is the usual bigoted misandrist retort. Newsflash for you: there is much more to male sexuality and male sexual desire than the release of some liquid.
It’s hardly misandrist to suggest that most men would prefer masturbation to raping someone. Obviously, most men would also prefer eager and willing partners to masturbation, but “there’s more to male sexuality and male sexual desire than the release of some liquid” doesn’t imply that the “more to male sexuality and male sexual desire” would involve active willingness to inflict pain and suffering on people who haven’t volunteered for it.
It is only offensive to those who believe that it being true would imply general inferiority of men.
Well, yes, actually, if I truly believed that the normal response of men to being sexually frustrated were to be willing to, in effect, torture me, while the normal response of women to the same were to still allow me my physical integrity, I would find men inferior as companions to women. After all, I place a high priority on keeping myself free of injury.
And, believe me, emotional reactions aside, sex that I’m not volunteering for is going to hurt like bloody hell, even if I’m not being subjected to additional injuries on top of that.
In fact, though, Sam’s account more matches my experience of men and women than yours does.
For certain unspoken definitions of “we”, Robert, I suppose that’s true. You realize you just took two paragraphs to say “Hey, bitches, shut up and put out. I got mine.”
Third try to avoid the spam queue (since my posts aren’t even showing as in moderation). This time I’ll insert asterisks in words in case they’re what’s throwing me there.
It is not misandrist to suggest that men would prefer m*st*rb*t*n to rape. Sure, they’d also prefer eager and willing partners to m*st*rb*t*n, but that’s not at all the same thing as actively wanting to injure, hurt, and traumatize people.
And, yes, if I thought that men in general were actively willing to cause me severe harm any time they were sufficiently sexually frustrated, I’d consider them inferior companions to women. That’s simple self-preservation, and you’re not going to talk me out of it. Fortunately, I don’t believe any such thing about men in general.
OK, it appears that every single attempt I make to reply to Basta goes into the spam queue instead of the moderation queue, and I can’t find any way to rephrase that avoids that. Hugo, if you see this, could you rescue just one of my posts from the spam queue, I don’t care which one, and then feel free to delete this one?
Hah — the spam word is “misandrist” and/or “misandry”. Classic MRA buzzwords. In the future, don’t use them.
Yes, this is the usual bigoted m* retort.
What? Seriously, stop a moment and think - what have I said? “No excuse for rape” is m* now? Don’t worry, I hold the same standard for women - NOBODY of ANY gender has a right on other people’s bodies. Would you be willing to excuse a gay man raping YOU in the same way and claim it doesn’t make him inferior for you to accociate with? (I don’t think gay men are more/less safe than straight men, so no disrespect for gays from me. Just interesting what goes in Basta’s head when it’s his hide, not women’s).
Will you tell your mother/sister/daughter “The guy’ll rape you, if he’s sex-starved, but don’t think he’s inferior and if you prefer to keep distance from all men after believing me, your reaction is NOT normal”.
Newsflash for you: there is much more to male sexuality and male sexual desire than the release of some liquid.
I know, the same is true for women too. But I would think “much more” means mutual enjoynment, mental intimacy, etc. Try to imagine what rape looks like in RL, is it this “more”?
Later you say that nothing - no porn, no paying for sex, will prevent men from raping since there is “more”? Do you know yourself what this “more” is, if only rape will satisfy it? Bruised ago and a desire for revenge - “they don’t agree to sleep with me, but I’ll make them pay”?
And in answer to my 3-d point you turn around and claim that without cultural pressures we’re pretty similar. LOL. Don’t worry, Basta, women are shamed much more still and I am not sure where you live if you think men are shamed in practice at all. The double standard still stands - “he a stud, she a sl*” as I see.
You didn’t really mean that this obligation is conditional on the availability of sex workers’ services.
I didn’t mean that at all. Just wanted to find out what this mysterious “more” is in your head, if it isn’t even sex with a flesh and blood woman and how RAPE, not ENTHUSIASTIC SEX, can solve it.
And Basta!, I would be afraid to date/stay alone with someone, who would say such things to me. Seriously. May be the guy tests waters to attack me, which would be not his fault at all in his head, since, well he has needs and I, by dating him after the warning, showed my agreement (in his head).
El - a woman,
To be honest, just as there is a social pressure on women to be both sexually active and not be a slut, there is a pressure on men to be sexually assertive and dominant without being aggressive.
“He’s a stud, she’s a slut” isn’t one-way pressure. It puts pressure on men to be sexually successful and in control. Being a stud may ne considered positive by many, but for most men, that’s a problem rather than an opportunity. Btw, there’s definitely something like a male slut these days. I know a couple of men who have been very successful with women, whose reputation at some point hit them in the face because they lost opportunities with women who weren’t merely intersted in one night stands or short affairs. This isn’t so simple anymore.
And another point, I’m not really complaining, but - take this example: Last week, I was at a club, and a drunk girl is all over me. So I try to assess for a while how drunk she actually is, but decide she’s too drunk for anything. Since she mentioned she lives close by I help her get home. She stumbles three times during the 2 minutes walk from the club to her place, but still tries to drag me in. No way. But - do you realize that the assumption of a guy helping a drunk woman home instead of only being interested in having sex with her is practically non-existent? I had to make sure that everyone there who knew me, including the bouncers, saw me leave and come back within three minutes because of the implicit assumptions about any guy’s assumed agenda. Funny thing though, afterwards I asked a couple of guys if they had gone in with her, and everyone of them said, they’d have done the same - taken her home, and gone back to the club.
Don’t tell me that’s not shaming. Lynn is right -
In fact, it’s a statement of trust, not misa******. (seriously, that spam queue?)
So this -
may be the only point Basta! has. Alas, his defensive “men are like that” isn’t going to change that for the better, as it merely reinforces the stereotype that needs to be changed - as you say:
Back in the past, when women were actually shamed for expressing their sexuality, they were also observed to lust much more than men.
Are you sure? Except several cases of hysteria among nuns made to think devil got them (hysteria created sometimes with men’s help, btw) and witch trials, are you sure usual, most day-to-day women showed their desire? Hard to believe since punishment would’ve been greater than now. Imo the rumors had been greatly exaggerated by powerful interested parties (church among them), which pushed this view of women’s nature. By “this view” I mean association of women with body much more than men, which showed itself in lust among other things. Isn’t basta’s
It is only offensive to those who believe that it being true would imply general inferiority of men.
claims men are “bodier” than women, which church considered applied to women AND implied women’s “general inferiority”? I don’t claim church says it now, but back in time it did, right?
You’re right that men are hurt too, but imo women still suffer more since I believe having the power to decide, agency is vastly preferable to being denied it by culture. I wish it was more acceptable for women to offer a hand to a man, kiss him first, without waiting for him to do it (and refusing unwanted, too quick kiss/etc. is hard too) and not worry about it being read as “she offers me sex tonight”, “is easy”, “desparate”.
I haven’t visited clubs, been drunk or in a world of 1 night stands.(Btw, I am 25, not 18). I also wouldn’t want a man, who has been “very successful with women”, if that means “changed them as gloves”. I would give a good guy a chance, but still it would bother me somewhat, that we view sex so differently, that he’s after so many different women (and definitely with herpes+HPV at the least), that for me everything is yet new, but almost always after many partners it isn’t for the man any longer. Imo certain innocence and purity of experience gets lost after 100 women. Not always, Hugo is one example, but he sadly isn’t representative. For me really very successful with women guy is like several former classmates of mine, who’re still with their girlfriends from school. I don’t mean that it’s a literal requirement :) , but men who are relationship oriented, who aren’t Lotharios. I view them as truly sexually and otherwise successful.
el - a woman,
“I view them as truly sexually and otherwise successful.”
Yeah, I should have put “successful” in speech marks - the measurement varies from person to person. No one said that you should be attracted to men who had a lot of relationships, I merely tried to say that “virility” is no longer only considered a good thing - so there also is male-slut shaming.
I have come to the conclusion that I don’t want to play oppression olympics anymore. Suffering is incommensurable, there’s simply no appropriate scale for any useful comparison. That said, I do believe that it is women who usually decide which guy gets what. “We offer, you pick”. So, yeah, there is *some* power in approaching, but it’s a power most guys will never be able to use successfully. The grass is always greener on the other side.
And thanks for bringing up the hysteria thing - I need to get Siri Hustvedt’s new book.
I merely tried to say that “virility” is no longer only considered a good thing - so there also is male-slut shaming.
Only for a man to get slut shamed, he needs dozens of women in his past and many women still won’t feel the way I do. For a woman, much less is enough and most men will shame her and have difficulty accepting her past. You can’t say it’s the same, because the standard is still different and much stricter on women.
That said, I do believe that it is women who usually decide which guy gets what. “We offer, you pick”.
“women who usually decide” - extremely bad wording. Rather say that in order for something to happen both people have to agree. But that’s true no matter who approaches. *not about you, general thinking aloud comes further* It’s part of sexist mode of thinking - “yes, women shouldn’t approach, but we know the power is theirs *wink wink*” Or like traditional shaming women about their sexuality, putting them in the oppressive role of the gate-keeper and then saying they have all the “power”… (to lose in zero-one game of sex in most sexist men’s heads).
I don’t want to play “oppression olympics”, but what about a woman, whom nobody approaches? What about being interested in boy X, trying to be noticed by him and instead attracting numerous other guys, whom you don’t want?
“it’s a power most guys will never be able to use successfully” - Are you sure? Most men I saw managed it just fine, especially out of high school, when the time comes for serious relationships. Not to say it can’t suck for shy guys. Personally I would want a society in which both sexes played the same role and could be as active/passive as they wished.
“Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” (Bonaparte, Napoleon)
Nobody said deciding is always easy, but I can’t agree that it equals not having this power (RE: “grass is always greener”). It’s true both for dating and in other areas of life. Imagine business offers situation instead of dating or searching for a job (not perfect analogies). Being proactive is smth to cultivate and cherish in oneself in general.
el - a woman,
Sure, I didn’t say it’s the same. But it also *is*. Btw, recently talkted with a female friend about a Cosmo advice column in which women were told to always say they had not more than 5 previous partners, and she told me, that, if she, as a 30+ year old woman, were asked that question and said “5″, the guy would either think she was lying or that there was something wrong with her . So, well, things are changing. But I’d agree that there is still more pressure for men to measure their masculinity by their “score” and for women to measure their value by their ability to resist male offers. Sucks.
As for the general thinking aloud part - I think it’s great when women do approach, it’s just that they usually don’t, which - given that *someone* must approach for anything to follow - is, in any specific circumstance - the reason for the replication of the standard roles and ritual. I think part of the reason is that it’s something more people, including women, feel comfortable doing as they’re used to it. This is also changing, but it’s a long term development.
Again, incommensurable, but I’d say it’s better for the ego to be able to tell yourself that he simply didn’t notice instead of being downright rejected when you put yourself out there. One of Hugo’s top ten posts last year was about that, in a way (”the missing narrative of being hot” or so).
I’m sure about most guy’s inability to use the power. I’m also aware they usually don’t talk about that - seriously, being weak in this respect is about the worst thing to feel for a man, you’d have to be, like, their best female friend to even get close to them opening up about that kind of thing in an honest way. Btw, I’m not saying men who cannot use the power to choose whom they approach will not get sex or relationships, it’s just that it’s not because of that “power to approch” - they will not approach the girl they would like to meet, they will talk to the one they are introduced to, for example. Very few men actually are able to use that “power” (and some women are able to use it, too). I agree on your wish for a society in which people could do as they whished.
I agree. But I don’t think women who are *inviting* to physically approach instead of doing the approach themselves are not being proactive. They are. They’re just being proactive in one particular way.
Btw, there’s definitely something like a male slut these days.
Sam, the fact that you have to use the adjective “male” to modify “slut” in order to apply it to men should tell you just about how dead the double standard really is.
Basta conveniently omits the reason that women were thought to be more lustful “in the past” - pre-Enlightenment, Western culture believed that men were the enlighted, rational half of the species, and women were the dumb, emotion-driven, thinking-with-their-crotches half. It wasn’t simply that women had a higher sex drive; they simply didn’t have the faculties of reason to regulate it. Hence “All witchcraft springs from carnal lust, which in women is insatiable.”
Not playing Suffering Olympics is one thing, but it’s tiresome to have this trope whipped out as a sort of STFU card whenever it’s suggested that perhaps while sexism hurts both men and women, it definitely values masculinity more than femininity and hurts women more. Oops, can’t say that! Suffering Olympics! Now let’s get back to pretending that women have half the money and all of the pussy.