DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Why DO so many lame men rely on prostitution and porn in order to "connect" with women/their sexuality..

356 posts / 0 new
Last post
Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 13 2006 14:54
Lone Wolf wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
So LW, you don't really believe that going to a prostitute necessarily entails being incapable of emotionally connecting with a woman? I'm not convinced...I hate it when people make controversial assertions and then attempt to cloak them in humour.

Alan

To clarify

No no I didn't say it entails that..at all..reread the OP - - i said I wasn't referring to the more casual client base but those who really don't know of any other way to connect..

So wait...you construct a stereotype and then ask us to embellish it? I'm not entirely sure whether I've ever met someone who's used a hooker, and if I have, we certainly haven't discussed it. My exposure to prostitution via the media has always led me to believe that it catered for every income, class and taste. Like every other industry, it has to expand.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 13 2006 14:59

What about the cultural capital one can accrue via relationships? What price can one put on the status one gleans off one other's half? In fact, is status more of an issue than the actual potential material benefits of a relationship?

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 13 2006 15:03
Quote:
50 bob is £2.50. A bob is slang for a shilling, which is 5 new pence. If that seems expensive, how much do you usually pay?

Bob is slang for a quid isnt it...

But I was joking, all that sort of stuff is just nasty.

My xmas list is full of earth crisis CDs and raw food books.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 15:04
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
So LW, you don't really believe that going to a prostitute necessarily entails being incapable of emotionally connecting with a woman? I'm not convinced...I hate it when people make controversial assertions and then attempt to cloak them in humour.

Alan

To clarify

No no I didn't say it entails that..at all..reread the OP - - i said I wasn't referring to the more casual client base but those who really don't know of any other way to connect..

So wait...you construct a stereotype and then ask us to embellish it? I'm not entirely sure whether I've ever met someone who's used a hooker, and if I have, we certainly haven't discussed it. My exposure to prostitution via the media has always led me to believe that it catered for every income, class and taste. Like every other industry, it has to expand.

Hey no it is not a stereotype to me!!! I KNOW men who come into this category - and if you don't then that is cool..I would not ask someone to "embellish" on something that doesn't have resonance for them..we all have different experiences and perceptions of these things..and I think it is cool that we can share these..That is why i try to keep my OPS as open as poss...even when there is one aspect of particular interest to me cos not everyone will be "down" with that aspect..

Shit I so should have been somewhere like, an hour ago..
embarrassed Must dash for now..

Love

LW X

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 15:17

Revol

I am only referring to SOME folks some of whom I KNOW IRL so this is NOT just a cliche - I am talking real peeps here.. and I have already explained about the OP..it wasn't supposed to be enlightening but to stimulate.. this appeared to work...tongue (I never read that RAG piece btw..sounds quite interesting and bizarre tho..)

Love

LW X

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 15:21
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
What about the cultural capital one can accrue via relationships? What price can one put on the status one gleans off one other's half? In fact, is status more of an issue than the actual potential material benefits of a relationship?

They appear to go hand in hand tbh..status, wealth and
power are concomitants...(this follows on from the bit in my OP about rels based on diffs in wealth/power and youth..because the one thing oldsters CANNOT buy is youth..so they have to "buy" it back indirectly via another..who will offer this in exchange for the power they lack.. etc etc)

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 13 2006 15:25

What I find hard is when people are so shitty moralising about 'sluts' and 'slappers', and won't even recognise that it is a job, even trying to give tentative suggestions as to why women (and men) go into various sex industry jobs isnt worth anything, although I would sure like to know where this 'slut' mentality arises from, maybe there will be some pills to stop it.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 13 2006 15:25

*Thinks for a while...*

cry

Oh fuck, we're all gonna die unhappy.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 13 2006 15:26
dara wrote:
as far as i can see, masculine heterosexuality generally functions around 'ownership' of women's bodies. i can think of people trying to get into the pants of a girlfriend by buying them dinner, gifts etc., which is basically trying to purchase sex/intimacy. Prostitution seems like a once-off and more simplified version of this.

Odd's points were very good, since he related prostitution to generalised discourses of sexuality. Sometimes people want to have sex without committment, but it can seem difficult when there exists a strong normative (& monogamous) relationship ideal.

I think calling people who use prostitutes emotionally insecure or whatever misses the point; both johns and prostitutes arise out of specific forms of sexuality, and are hardly just weird exceptions. (it seems that) Women are often encouraged to think of their bodies as something to be sold, and are simply encouraged to sell shrewdly, while men are encouraged to think of women's bodies as something to be purchased, the form of exchange varies (chocolates, flowers, jewellery, dinner, 50 bob for a handjob) but exchange remains the rule.

Could you be a little more reductionist and insulting in your analysis of male sexuality?

Jesus.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 13 2006 15:30
Quote:
as far as i can see, masculine heterosexuality generally functions around 'ownership' of women's bodies. i can think of people trying to get into the pants of a girlfriend by buying them dinner, gifts etc., which is basically trying to purchase sex/intimacy. Prostitution seems like a once-off and more simplified version of this.

They just sound like nasty guys. I dont think you can generalise to a 'hterosexual masculinity', for the sheer fact there isnt one, same as there isnt a 'hetrosexual feminity', sure early socialisation and the continuation of this throughout life have major parts to play in peoples lives but people are also socialised differently, there isnt one defined form of socialisation or indeed masculinity/femininty.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 13 2006 15:33

Well it's hardly like Dara was saying that his construction applied to all men, just that such attitudes exist and it's a possible explanation for why some men use prostitutes. I guess it's conceivable enough...

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 13 2006 15:46

I got it first time Alan.

From Dara's post it seems like they were trying to give a generalised pattern to hetrosexual male behaviour, especially in regards to sexual relations, this isnt true. Its not true for men or women.
Although i'm not saying Dara would do this but its also the same shite given for racism- a generalised pattern of behaviour is taken from some pricks behaviour.
Maybe some nasty men do try to act in accordance with what they see to be a 'red blooded hetrosexual' male culture, inc. all its sexism as well, but this dosen't mean that all men follow this, just as it dosen't mean all women follow a lifestyle obsessed with make up and perfume.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 13 2006 15:47
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Well it's hardly like Dara was saying that his construction applied to all men, just that such attitudes exist and it's a possible explanation for why some men use prostitutes. I guess it's conceivable enough...

The post opened with:

Quote:
as far as i can see, masculine heterosexuality generally functions around 'ownership' of women's bodies.

That looks an awful lot like a reference to all male, heterosexual sexuality to me.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 13 2006 15:48
revol68 wrote:
oh ignore him, he seems to be going through an 80's revival stage, he was banging on about the sexualisation of meat the other week too.

Couldn't you just get into new wave instead dara?

Dara's a bloke?

Fucking hell, do you view your own sexuality in this way as well Dara? eek :?

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 13 2006 15:56

The problem is Dara took one form of male socialisation and made it a generalisation. The problem is people are many socialisations, including the 'bloke' attitude down the pub, talking to the wife/gf etc . Some people may hate the 'blokey' attitude, but they feel forced into it through the way mates go on, I know people who dislike how their workcolleges or mates go on, but they fell they also need to adapt (at least in part) to this attitude to 'fit in', peer pressure and all.

BTW im sure there is a better word than socialisation.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 13 2006 16:13
revol68 wrote:
dara wrote:
masculine heterosexuality generally functions around 'ownership' of women's bodies.

Quote:
Well it's hardly like Dara was saying that his construction applied to all men, just that such attitudes exist and it's a possible explanation for why some men use prostitutes.

generally functions would seem to imply it's the prevalent axiom.

I thought he just meant by "masculine" (as opposed to "male") he meant that the kind of socialised masculine ideal is that - not that all men were like that at all, but there is definite socialisation in that direction.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 16:26
revol68 wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:
Revol

I am only referring to SOME folks some of whom I KNOW IRL so this is NOT just a cliche - I am talking real peeps here.. and I have already explained about the OP..it wasn't supposed to be enlightening but to stimulate.. this appeared to work...tongue (I never read that RAG piece btw..sounds quite interesting and bizarre tho..)

Love

LW X

well i know some women who are idiotic, spiteful, scabbing bastards who if there was any justice would connect a toaster with their bath but i don't start fecking threads about them, or use them as a stepping stone to a discussion about political issues.

Hey so you know some pretty mean women by the sounds!!! eek

I don't see why you shouldn't start a thread on female negative attitudes and behaviour and the causes of this if you wanted to..not that you are saying you want to.. but you could!!

And these men are not a stepping stone so much as a "thought starter"..And their behaviour DOES have its roots in the political realm as well as the related psych realm IMHO etc etc .. as does the femmes you mention..

Love

LW X

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Dec 13 2006 16:28
revol68 wrote:
dara wrote:
masculine heterosexuality generally functions around 'ownership' of women's bodies.

Quote:
Well it's hardly like Dara was saying that his construction applied to all men, just that such attitudes exist and it's a possible explanation for why some men use prostitutes.

generally functions would seem to imply it's the prevalent axiom.

indeed it would.

the uttely puerile generalizations on this thread would be vomit-making, if i had not been long since inured to hearing such defensive garbage.

perhaps i can make the point this way:

"In what ways and how has our society produced such a number of sexually, socially and emotionally inadequate and illiterate women???

Why are some women SO terrified of men they can only engage with their sexuality via fantasy?

Why why why......I have some theories...

And just to fling this into the mix.. remember the thread on drunken "consent" to sex.. someone gave a link which had a great quote along the lines of.."The real question we should be asking is why so many women want to have sex with drunken, comatose men lying in a pool of vomit.." Good fucking question!!! It is always the men whose behaviour is questioned, never the women.

Why are so many women sooooo lame??????

And what solutions are there??? (Temp. one perhaps, before the Revolution.. )

It seems that a minority of women CAN be educated.. obv, drastic measures are needed with the dyed in the wool misandrists etc who will abuse the men badly..for example when a few middle-aged women have it pointed out to them that their son could fall into the position of john -and be hurt badly - that tends to broaden understanding..it helps to bring home to them that these are real people they have been using..(and no, this doc I saw - a moral stance was NOT being taken so much as a reality check one...i.e this is what this business is REALLY about)"

christ why do i waste my time with such a bunch of oprah addicts...

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 16:44

Newyawka

You don't HAVE to "waste your time"..its your choice..

You COULD ask these qs of women if you wanted to..the one about fantasy and terror sounds really interesting tbh..

Mebbe when you have calmed down a bit you might have something a bit more concrete to offer... I AM interested in the bit when you refer to my "garbage" as "defensive"? Of whom and in what way? If you get the chance i'd like to hear your views on that..and also you might like to read the rest of the thread first as lots of peeps have made concrete and useful contributions and Grace rightly guessed I was playing Devils Advocate to an extent to stimulate debate..it worked a lil' too well.. I may have created a monster!!!!! eek

Love

LW X

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 13 2006 16:47
Quote:
I mean if someone started a thread about drug dealing and then illustrated it with examples of black kids they knew, you'd raise an eyebrow. Infact you'd point out that such a stereotype whilst having some truth in it ie there are black drug dealers, is reactionary, and is bound up with some many assumptions.

Indeed, such generalisations are dangerous due to the fact that there are indeed men who are total pricks, just as there are black people that mug, but to then say this is down to male sexuality or a general trait to mug in black people is rubbish and not just that, is also dangerous.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 17:14

Revol

confused

But my commments aren't aimed at any poster on here and i am NOT generalising..I was referring to a specific group of men that I have experience with.(not on an interpersonal level btw so I have no personal issues in this area) .and asking other peeps opinion on this.. that is all..

And I STILL think men are entitled to start a thread on the causes and consequences of female behaviour if they want to..as long as this is not expressed in an overtly aggressive way..why not??

Love

LW X

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 17:46
revol68 wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:
Revol

confused

But my commments aren't aimed at any poster on here and i am NOT generalising..I was referring to a specific group of men that I have experience with.(not on an interpersonal level btw so I have no personal issues in this area) .and asking other peeps opinion on this.. that is all..

And I STILL think men are entitled to start a thread on the causes and consequences of female behaviour if they want to..as long as this is not expressed in an overtly aggressive way..why not??

Love

LW X

fuck you're hard work.

I'M hard work???!!!! tongue

The fact that you choose to use such men to discuss prostitution is itself implicitly politicised, why would you want to discuss these men?

A very good point.... I guess these men interest me in particular..and I guess I am interested in a broader discussion about these men than just their use of prostitution as my OP implied.. I guess I picked these men cos their lack of ability to relate is at the extreme end of a spectrum of unhappy and dysfunctional sexual and emotional behaviour that i am interested in cos I feel - to refer to your next point - this does interrelate back into the bigger picture. I just feel society/capital is failing sooo many men and women -this saddens me.

I mean the papers don't make up black drug dealers, immigrant criminals, or muslim extremists, the issue is why are these the ones that get talked about and how does this coverage and discussion effect the wider population.

Great point - the latter bit I mean - like i said my comments were only meant to be a thought starter..

You are making judgements about their sexuality that are pretty subjective,

I guess I don't consider it to be a judgement so much as an observation.. and of course everyones opinions and views are subjective so i have no probs you saying this

have these men told you this,

of course not because these things are NOT spoken of consciously which is why peeps feelings of inadequacy are so damaging..because they are not acknowledged and expressed..and because our society has a vested interest in keeping them this way - to sell them stuff, keep them feeling powerless and atomised etc etc etc..

furthermore if it's men you are conseulling don't you think your attitude is a tad judgemental?

No no no they are not counselling clients..I would not refer to them in this way however obliquely cos that would cross a professional line for me..

Also if you are going to use words like lame perhaps you might want to consider what a healthy relationship to sex is?

The lame word was me being mean/playing Devils Advocate..I have/will own that!! Not meant in a nasty way tho..

The issue of what is a healthy relationship to sex.. well that is a vast one, boy..worthy of another thread perhaps..
I will think of that one tho...

Love

LW X

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 18:01

Jack

Newyawka has already gone down the sarcasm route - you could try and be a bit more original..I guess it is too much to hope that you could provide an inital reaction other than the visceral seeing as there are quite a wide range of contributions on here now since the OP (which I have explained more than once.. ) I find it quite interesting that despite the fact I attempted to make it clear from the start that this thread was not about posters on here, more than one man has taken it as a personal attack... *sighs*..

Love

LW X

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 18:11
revol68 wrote:
I have not take it as a personal attack, i think the coaching of the origional question and some of the subsequent posts making absurd generalisations about male sexuality (like powertothe... said as if such a thing exists), and to be honest your post weren't as bad as dara's, is generally offensive and does nothing to move beyond pop feminist shite.

Nah I didn't mean you... i meant Jack and Newyawka! Not all of everyones comments on femme threads are aimed at you... tongue

And i think regarding you (your fave person!! wink ) I like to think we have moved on/are moving on to some interesting debate about the issues..

Love

LW X

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 18:12
Jack wrote:
I don't take it as a personal attack, I'm not masculine enough to feel effected by it.

Good response!! cool

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Dec 13 2006 18:14
Jack wrote:
Oh and one other thing, this out of more curiousity.

The thing about prostitution being the worlds oldest profession is balls, isn't it?

Not necessarily - according to a historian mate I used to know, they haven't found evidence of an older profession..doesn't mean there categorically wasn't of course..just that this is what the evidence suggests..

James Woolley
Offline
Joined: 18-11-06
Dec 13 2006 19:28
revol68 wrote:
i am saying that alot of people need to stop being so cavalier in their sweeping generalisations about peoples sexuality.

Why? Yes, only general truths are said and 'men' does not imply all men. There is no point in saying 'all men except... [insert non-patriarchal males here]' the whole premise is of analysing how males oppress females.

revol68 wrote:
Another thing is the smuggness of men making sweeping pronouncements about male sexuality as if it doesn't apply to them, I mean it's pathetic and really reeks of "i'm not like the other boys" bollox. And believe me many "feminist" men are just old fashioned leecherous bastards with a different angle.

Well, I'm not a hypocrite, so I can comfortably criticise things such as pornography etc. One could say the same thing about, for example, Marx, who criticised the bourgeoisie a great deal, and yet was a member himself of that class. Was there anything 'smug' about this?

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 13 2006 19:28
madashell wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Well it's hardly like Dara was saying that his construction applied to all men, just that such attitudes exist and it's a possible explanation for why some men use prostitutes. I guess it's conceivable enough...

The post opened with:

Quote:
as far as i can see, masculine heterosexuality generally functions around 'ownership' of women's bodies.

That looks an awful lot like a reference to all male, heterosexual sexuality to me.

OK so instead of taking me up on my points and pushing the debate forward, you and Belfast have focused on ensuring that you "win" an argument by dragging up what someone said. Excellent. wink

Moving on, is the necessary material exchange involved in any sort of romance/courting a part of the social relation that supports prostitution, or is that a load of libewal feminist balls? Moreover, why automatically present the woman as the victim in this scenario? Anecdote: my mate's currently seeing this girl who apparently won't take the tube, so he rinsed £90 on cab fares when they went out on Friday. Of course she didn't contribute a penny. On my reading that kinda looks like she's milking him a little. Who's the victim there?

Jesus, please don't allow the liberals on here, even if they are dressed in some feminist rhetoric.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Dec 13 2006 20:23

Hi

Quote:
Why IS prostitution the oldest profession?

Low overheads.

Quote:
Why do such a substantial minority of men find themsleves unable to engage sexually or emotionally with a woman unless it takes the form of an upfront financial transaction

For the same reason that a substantial minority of men find themsleves unable to engage sexually or emotionally with a woman unless it takes the form of pissing on them. Their inability is merely the lack of a wish to resist doing what they enjoy.

Quote:
(as opposed to the "subtler" variety.. young women marrying rich old ugly guys etc etc - alto this IS a related issue)

It’s hardly fair you answering your own questions.

Quote:
but those who appear unable to function without these visits on a regular basis and who appear unable to engage in a meaningful relationship/sexual encounter

The idea that one relationship or sexual encounter is more or less meaningful than another is somewhat reactionary.

Quote:
Why are some men SO terrified of women they can only engage with their sexuality via porn

They are not terrified of women in general, just the mingers who offer themselves up for sex.

Quote:
The real question we should be asking is why so many men want to have sex with drunken, comatose women lying in a pool of vomit.

1. Drunken
Drunk chicks love a bit of it. They really do. I bet you can’t keep your hands off the boys when you’ve had a few.

2. Comatose
To get attention or maybe as part of a bizarre “sleeping beauty” complex.

3. Vomit
Some people become aroused by the sight and smell of vomit.

Quote:
It is always the women whose behaviour is questioned, never the men.. I think both Arf and RedTwister made this point before or backed me on the point I made..

Maybe in the Amish villages you folks must live in, I can assure you the civilised world has fewer double standards. In fact, where I come from, your point is something of a cliché.

Quote:
Why are so many men sooooo lame?

It attracts girls that’ll put out without too much drama.

Quote:
And what solutions are there?

You’ve lost me. What’s the problem?

Quote:
it seems that a minority of men CAN be educated…

This post was going great, but I’ve missed your point completely. Educated to do what?

Love

LR

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 13 2006 20:38

i think this thread can be summed up thus:

most men, even supposedly humanitarian or socialist or "enlightened" men, will find a million pathetic and petty ways to avoid answering difficult questions about why they and other men treat women like dirt.

Topic locked