Humans, instincts and working girls dilemma.
Hi all, hope you're well. It's been some time since I've been here but thought I'd drop by to ask for some info, or even insight if anyone has any to offer.
I was discussing human "instinct" earlier with a friend and they were... I don't know how to word this so I'm just going to give it a go and try not to ramble, hopefully you get the idea. They were trying to suggest that pro st itu tes are a good thing to have around not only for lonely men or disabled people etc, but also to help lower the instance of men sexually abusing women out of an instinct for sex. I'm not entirely convinced that a man who would r@ pe someone would decide not to and go see a worker instead. I have my doubts about that being an instinct that left unfulfilled would result in that kind of consequence. Or maybe it would be? I have done a couple of google searches (got some stuff relating to humans not having instincts which was partly helpful) but not really enough so I was hoping someone here may be able to direct me to some reliable sources. Or fill me in if you know anything. I'm guessing social sciences, sociobiology and/or psychology or something? I haven't really studied anything like that and it's mostly to satisfy my curiosity really. |
**** is not really about sex, it is about power and control.
|
So r.ape and abuse are innate male instinct: men can only channel that instinct onto women who don't "matter", rather than learning NOT to be abusive...
With all due respect, I'd suggest your friend is talking bollocks born of r.ape culture rather than human instinct. Sex is a natural urge; abuse is not, as far as I can see. Hurtful domination (like r.ape, or abuse) can be a part of the whole construct of masculinity, but non-hurtful domination - the idea that "women are to be protected and it's your duty as a man to ensure that they are" is just as strong a cultural trope. The form that even traditional and outmoded approaches to masculinity can take vary hugely between different men, depending on various factors: in this case, whether said man is of an abusive bent or not. |
Also I know the original post was about **** but I feel that it is important to mention that child molesters are frequently seen as having a deviant sexual orientation, but the truth is that most of them are heterosexuals who do have an active sex life with people in their peer group, many of them are even married. Much like with **** it is about something other than just sex.
|
All I have to add is if that was true, then why are so many prostituted women rraped and murdered?
|
Yeah, exactly.. To all of the above. I even said in an obviously over-the-top-way-to-make-my-point "If that's the case then child p0rn0graphy must be a good thing because it's stops child molesters from actually molesting children." It became quite a heated discussion resulting in me becoming frustrated and not able to really back my argument. He did end up seeing a couple of my points which I think resulted in his thinking changing but he seems to just be of the opinion that if a man doesn't have sex by the time he is say, 35 or something then he'll be so frustrated that it might drive him to r@pe, if he were to have the makings of a r@pist.. His way of thinking was that if that man had the avenue of being able to see a prostitute then he possible wouldn't r@pe or abuse for that reason.
I don't buy it. I ended up asking him in an accusing kind of way "So you're saying if there were no prostitutes, you would r@pe someone if you didn't have sex for ages?!" I really wanted to be able to find some good info or statistics or anything that might prove my point. I think I'm blocked from searching for that stuff using the work internet connection though and I'm still out here on site (I work on a minesite) for another week. It really hits a raw nerve with me because he seems to think that prostitution is something it's not. Like that most the women doing it choose to, even want to or enjoy it. My mother was a prostitute (TMI, sorry) and I can tell you neither she nor any of the women she worked with enjoyed it for one second. They may have been able to appear that way as a result of the drugs they'd become addicted to. |
I can imagine that would strike a nerve! Maybe he didn't know that about your mom, but jeez, that's why you don't assume shit and say things like that.
If you want a good resource, I really recommend the book R ape: Sex, Violence, History by Joanna Bourke. Its basically a historical account of the last 100+ years in regards to how our view of r@pe and rapists have changed throughout the years, and the effectiveness of treatment. I remember the "men won't rrape if they are sexually satisfied" myth being brought up, I do believe that idea is Freudian in origin if I remember correctly (don't have the book in the house, sorry), but hasn't stood the test of time, namely because as Solumina said many rapists DO have regular sex lives, and even some rapists who were castrated and no longer had a sex drive ended up reoffending even more violently with an object. Most rapists don't believe they are rapists, but entitled to what they did, and yet interestingly enough many reported that they couldn't orgasm during the rrape. They don't get that much pleasure out of it at all. It goes to show that even though most of academia and medicine don't believe that any more and moved on a while ago, it stays in the public conscious. |
In terms of 'winning the argument' (I hate how petty that makes it sound, when it's anything but), I'd say the main thing is to try and get him to acknowledge that in making this statement, he is basically saying that men's sexual instincts are beyond their control and that women should accommodate them rather than holding them to account when they turn violent on the back of them. However generally speaking, western society does accept mere frustration as an excuse for the kind of violent crime that wrecks innocent lives, so why is the sexual instinct of men so exceptional? Put the onus on him to explain that. I'm willing to bet he can't, beyond a vague sense of male entitlement engendered in him by a misogynistic culture, whose logic will not stand up under scrutiny.
Based on arguments I've had in a similar vein, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that unless he's an outright dickhole (in which case, you probably wouldn't call him a friend), he probably doesn't even realise that that's the pared-down subtext of what he's saying. Once you can get him to admit to this, his argument pretty much falls apart on its own. Also, I'm sorry that you had to deal with his bullshit, knowing what you know about how wrong he is... must be hella frustrating. It sucks so hard being slapped around the face with the knowledge that even guys who aren't the 'bad guys' live in a world that tells them it's okay to throw women under the bus, in defence of nothing more than the male sex-drive. :( |
Yeah that is utter bullshit. I don't know if I am at luxury to be an example, but I haven't had sex in almost three years. The most that has happened is that I lost interest in caring about my sex life. I haven't turned into some sex depraved r@pist lurking in the shadows of an alley way.
|
Your friend is talking shit.
Men (or women or flying spaghetti monsters) **** because: -They get off on dominating or humiliating someone. -As a form of control. -Because they buy into the rubbish that 'no' isn't meant to be taken seriously, or is just a token refusal because someone is willing but doesn't want to be seen as a slut. - That the rapist somehow has a right to have sex with someone. - That no doesn't have to be taken seriously from a... non-virgin/sex worker/partner/’promiscuous’ or flashily dressed person/someone doing whatever their mindset decides is ‘asking for it'. Not because of sexual frustration. If it were simply sexual desire you would act on every impulse no matter where you were at the time and get arrested for humping the person in front of you at the supermarket. Or at least go after someone who is a consenting adult rather than forcing yourself on someone who obviously doesn't want it. Also people who aren’t “sexy” get *****. Old people in nursing homes, overweight, plain, disabled, children, people in comas, nuns, lesbians get ***** to “correct them”... straight men even **** other men. Sad to say... Rapists **** because they don't give a fuck about someone's right to be safe in their own body if it happens to be inconvenient for the rapist. And the rapist finds a way to justify it to themselves as not ****. Supplying prostitutes to 'stop ****' just reinforces to men like your friend that he does have a 'right' to have sex rather than it being a privilege granted by the individual, that womens bodies are there for his entertainment. That there is a class of woman that is there to be used. That womens bodies are a commodity for his consumption. Trying to throw prostitutes under the bus to protect “respectable” women from being ***** sends a very bad message. In his suggested scenario women can choose between being attacked or being bought, so they better go quietly and choose the second. (Not to judge all sex work or clients if the workers are happy and safe. And I believe that the client reimburses the worker for services rendered, not that he buys her. But often women in the sex industry can be exploited and commodified, and are vulnerable to disrespect or poor treatment because of value judgments/ the belief that the client has bought the right to do whatever he wants to her.) Also, your friends' theory presents men as animals with no self control. That’s not true. EDIT: I've used he/she because historically that's usually been the way it's gone. If you don't like that simply read again with gender neutrals and it still makes sense. |
I wanna know a little more about your friend's argument.
Was it in the sense of, we need a legal means of satisfying our sexual needs, to alleviate sexual repression in society. Or was it in the sense of, we need an acceptable scapegoat for violent sexual behavior so that it doesn't happen to the rest of society? If it's the former, then it's pseudo-Freudian, though I can see where they come from, but in a majorly stupid way. If it's the latter, then that's majorly fucked up and I have no respect for them. |
I'm a little in love with Acharis's post. Very well-put.
|
Thanks Cuckoo :)
I reread and would like to add to it - Also, his theory doesn't work. **** still persists despite wide access to sex workers and porn. Don't give me that crap about not being able to afford either, there was that millionaire/politician who sexually assaulted his maid in a hotel. (I don't recall much more detail than that.) The sexual repression point is valid I guess... But unfortunately when a sexual liberation takes place, it does so in a way that makes some freer than others. As in it gets twisted to suit the privileged groups; so instead of letting everybody have sexual agency and health/safety without being discriminated against, it allows some groups to merrily objectify and sexually exploit others. On the subject of **** culture too. There's also this cultural mindset that someone must score to be a real man; and that women are always going to reject sex unless they are plied with alcohol, gotten around by being told what they want to hear, pressured, or put in their place as 'they ain't all that'. It's the culturally accepted idea that a man must be having sex, and (if) when a woman says no the man just needs to try harder. In the words of *my* dumbass friend-of-a-friend, "We [men] HAVE to do this!" Dodgy stuff. |
Damn edit.
As is 'prostitutes for lonely or disabled men'. Because men have the right to have sex with someone elses body! Doesn't matter so much how the women might feel about their employment or clients. /sarcasm |
Uh, so I just opened my web browser and my home page is a news site... Coincidentally this was a headline:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...x-for-disabled Saya, he does know about my mum. I also brought it up again for the purpose of trying to prove my point in our discussion. This is really embarrassing to admit, for obvious reasons but the "friend" I'm talking about is actually my boyfriend. I suppose I don't want to admit that I'm with someone who has such a massive difference of opinion on an issue like this. It's seriously bothering me. Which brings me to.. Cuckoo, spot on. I don't think he realises just what he's saying but I need him to realise it.. I'm not the kind of woman who can be with someone who has such an annoying and offensive view about something I find serious. It's upsetting. I did make a breakthrough at one point and he told me "Okay, yeah I see your point, that makes sense." But he is still being a bit stubborn on the main issue and I just really needed things to say to him to make him rethink his stance on it. Thank you, by the way, everything everyone has posted here really helps. MOC, My brother and I have a friend (someone my brother works with) and I can't say for sure that he isn't a r@pist or anything but he is still a virgin at 38. He is a really nice guy and I seriously doubt he would resort to forcing himself on a woman to satisfy himself. Although, I hear he does have a rather large p0rnography collection. Alan, I can't say for sure but I think it's a bit of both. He said something like "Surely prostitutes are a good thing because it must keep the incidence of r@pe down." He seems to be under the mistaken impression that if men have access to sex, paid for or otherwise, then they are less likely to sexually abuse. As in, if someone who may have the (makings?) or um, what's the word? If someone were going to sexually abuse or r@pe because of an unfulfilled "need" for sex then them having access to sex that they could buy would deter them from sexually abusing or r@ping. He doesn't think prostitutes should be mistreated in anyway. He's not suggesting they should have violent customers. Sadly they do though. I don't know. It's stupid and I hate it. It's a frustrating argument that I kind of need to have him change his opinion on or this relationship simply isn't going to last. That makes me sad because we're quite serious and I honestly have no idea how we've gotten this far without me knowing that he has a shitty opinion like this.. This is why I need info or advice or whatever because I really want him to see this differently. I simply need to present my points (and all of yours which are a brilliant help, thanks again) in a way that will open his eyes to what he's saying and how he sounds then I'm sure he'll come to his senses. He is a good and reasonable man, if somewhat ignorant it seems :/ |
This reminds me too much of the debate Elystan mad on prostitution.
Your boyfriend is not thinking things through, and if past experience is any help and he's making the same arguments, then he's stupidly believing that this issue is just a matter of hypotheticals. That the decision is between "prostitution yay or nay" in present society and that we shouldn't care of the implications. Nevermind that legalized prostitution increases human trafficking. Nevermind that in today's society legalizing prostitution still presumes that women are a commodity to be bought, used, and abused. Nevermind that until there's a strong movement for sex workers' rights there's little empowering in the business of prostitution save for those who entered it from an already privileged position and made a conscious decision of becoming prostitutes, or escorts in this scenario. In his mind the only other side to legalizing prostitution is 'logically' to prohibit it (is he a libertarian by any chance?) so there's never any real critique of modern values in regards to women, sex, and prostitution. |
It's not quite the same because there aren't any posters being demonised in this thread.
I still maintain that your guys "willing prostitution doesn't ever happen" stance is about as useful in evaluating the moral standing of the act as the prevailing "prostitutes are bad because they are bad" stance. |
Quote:
Quote:
Must be blocking the dreaded S word. Sneakily get yourself a router if you won't get caught? (Not entirely sure how to get round a block.) I'm sorry to hear that you and your boyfriend have such different opinions Crimson. I got to know a man who often made similar comments and he got quite offensive in them at times... It didn't work out. I hope your boy does think through the implications of what he's saying. I find often men don't want to hear about it when you call a comment out... a few will take it on board. Fortunately my best guy friend understands why I don't like **** jokes, so they are out there! Interesting link, and I agree that people with disabilities have as much of a capacity for eroticism and affection as non-disabled people... but I have to disagree with the assumption that s** workers are a necessity for the acceptance of that fact. I wish these groups would stop screaming, and work on reducing the myths of asexuality or unattractiveness in disability in ways that don't throw others under the bus. Appliances are available which are usable by people with limited mobility, and carers do sometimes assist in their use. Anyway these advocates assume people with disabilities don't otherwise have s** or relationships. Funny story - at the last goth club I went to one of the ladies was there in a wheelchair, and she asked my friend to grab her something out of her bag. Friend reaches in to oblige - and pulls out a box of condoms. Bitch! She was getting more than either of us! ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
We have innumerable times. Just shut the fuck up because I even addressed privileged sex workers in this very thread and Acharis replied to that.
You're the only blind fucking idiot that sees something different than the rest of the world, and clearly you can't be wrong, oh no, it must be that every other single person in the world is wrong. Grow up. |
Know what? I'm even giving the decency of going through the thread (a favor you don't deserve) and here's what I found:
When Grausam called out on you for not including strippers on a thread of sex workers, when they are, you said Quote:
Quote:
The second post I made explicitly states: Quote:
The real argument was that we read what you were saying as this: Quote:
Quote:
AND YOU ADMITTED THIS MUCH ALREADY! Quote:
You even tried to do a new thread about that https://www.gothic.net/boards/showthread.php?t=25630 And THERE you say that this 5% that we 'refuse to acknowledge' and that according to you is perfectly willing and even empowered through sex still suffer Quote:
You can't even keep your opinions straight after completely deforming the initial topic to fit your need to 'win' the argument Let's see on the contrary what others have to say. Saya mentioned that non-oppressive prostitution does exist: Quote:
Quote:
I mention my very real work with sex workers in my city, contrary to your little idle hypotheticals of a privileged white kid Quote:
Quote:
And Versus had to repeat himself once more to call on how YOU are the one making a generalization on all prostitution from the few cases of privilege that happens Quote:
And THEN you even acknowledged your own short-sightedness and mutilated the topic once more Quote:
Q.E.D. bitch |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm picturing a guy yelling QED BITCH!!! and fist bumping all his bros
|
Dude people gave you opinions, stories, and facts about that very small minority but as even a lot of the stuff pertaining to that segment of sex workers was less than pleasant you just refused to accept what was being said.
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 PM. |