http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2008/02/05/carnival-culture-07-good-ti...
Very interesting what it has to say about the nature of relationships between males and females.
Strange (well not really :D) that male chimps will "pay" to look at female chimp hindquarters...
And yet somehow, people will insist that men are somehow evil or wrong for doing what comes naturally.
I'll never understand it!!!
[QUOTE=wet_suit_one;238718]
Why can't we just accept that men always pay and just carry on with the logical conclusions that this fact entails?
Sigh...
Such a complicated world... :([/QUOTE]
Why try to generalize something like the sexual habits of ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. Sex can be used for physical enjoyment, emotional enjoyment, power, reproduction, or any combination of the above. Take into consideration all of the different physical characteristics and emotions available and multiply that by all of the different ways that people's life experiences lead them to choose a particular way to satisfy wants and to act or not act for them and you have trillions of reasons that both men and women choose to pursue and/or accept the act from another.
One common theme - Due to you being jaded towards the passionate and emotional side of relationships from your experiences growing up, you constantly try to apply rational logic to analyze irrational parts of society. That's going to be a frustrating road like someone trying to scientifically analyze a religious belief.
I'll quote this view about prostitution:
"There's money in it and there's always customers. I wouldn't say it's "easy money" because I'm sure it's not "easy" to have sex with guys who are mostly ugly, nasty, old, weird, drunk, stupid, mean, dangerous, disgusting..... I wonder why men pay for sex instead of developing relationships with women who truly want to have sex with them. Maybe they aren't mature enough for that."
Given that it's regular guys who have sex with prostitutes, this person (and in my view, this person has a view that is VERY common in society at large), mistakenly views the average guy as: "...ugly, nasty, old, weird, drunk, stupid, mean, dangerous, disgusting"
Somehow, this seems to be the dominant view of society about men who express an interest in sex the way they want it (i.e. no muss, no fuss, no strings attached, i.e. prostitution).
They can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that most men just want an easy lay, a bit of enjoyment, take their minds off things for a bit and are happy to pay a fee for it. Instead, such a man is monster of some sort (criminalized in Sweden) and must have some kind of "relationship" with a woman before sex can be had with all that a "relationship" entails. Why can't we just have it easy without all the judgement and criminalization?
The vast majority of men, even those who want an easy lay, don't want to keep women from power, don't want to abuse them, don't want them desparate and on the streets, enslaved or any other horrific thing that happens in certain realms of prostitution (by no means does this describe ALL prostitution, heck in my neck of the woods, it's practically legal (not quite but practically) and it is totally legal in Germany (400,000 prostitutes amongs 80 million Germans or about 1% of the female population). Germany has not gone to hell in a handbasket nor are there women slaves or all the rest of the crap that goes with poorly conducted prostitution.
I just don't get it...
Marriage is, from various points of view, very much like prostitution except the price is waaaay higher (namely the opportunity cost of not being able to have sex with any other woman on earth. Considering all the woman I'd like to have sex with, that's too high a price to pay). If you're in love and stay in love, it's fine, but considering the astronomically high divorce rate and the number of people unhappy in marriage or dissatisfied with their sex lives (men and women), marriage is pretty lousy trade off (or a pretty lousy gamble at any rate) for a guy. Granted marriage is not all about sex, but let's be honest, marriage without sex is pointless. You won't even be able to have kids. Most men (and women for that matter), if they're honest, will say or agree that sex is pretty darned important in marriage and no sex is a problem.
Anyways...
I still don't understand.
Why can't we just accept that men always pay and just carry on with the logical conclusions that this fact entails?
Sigh...
Such a complicated world... :(
Well, I have a couple phone numbers I keep handy. Where do booty calls fit into all this?
Quit complaining - this cultural system was set up by men for men to control women and reproduction.
Men fear: 1. being tied to a harridan and 2. raising a child that is not his.
Women want security for themselves and their children.
Hence, marriage.
The problem with prostitution is the question of what is being bought & sold; is the prostitute a professional selling his/her skill and knowledge, or is the prostitute selling his/her body to be used by others as a commodity?
Just because animals do it does not mean that humans should. Ducks and mice rape, for example.
[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;238757]
Just because animals do it does not mean that humans should. Ducks and mice rape, for example.[/QUOTE]
And dolphins!!! You don't want to be THAT surfer.
http://www.slate.com/id/2220155/
This article is another fine example of how men are viewed poorly in society (and in this specific case) merely because of their sexuality.
Note the circumstances. A married man who loves his wife and takes care of her needs, is considered some kind of freak by said wife merely because he likes to have sexual satisfaction more than she wants him to. He's faithful, but he whacks off more than she would like and she has no interest in having as much sex as he would like which he has accepted. And yet, he's the one who's the "bad guy" or weird one.
WTF? Why is he considered the weird one?
I note that the columnist totally takes the wife side, accuses the guy of pressing the issue of sex (even though the OP more or less said he's dropped the issue i.e. he TRIED not he's TRYING, past vs. present tense...) and the OP didn't indicate a problem getting off, just that his wife thinks he takes too long.
So, guy asks an honest question of how to deal with a situation, and he gets dumped on. Why? Because he's a man with sexual needs that "society" considers improper.
Now, why is this such a constant theme in our world? A man doing what comes naturally and everyone from his wife to the columnist to the sex therapist is sure he's in the wrong...
Heck, the columnist is so aghast with this man and his honest question "..but how do I convey to her that masturbation is normal and that she shouldn't see it as evidence that she's inadequate?" that she can't even be bothered to answer the question straight out. She has to take the time and effort to completely avoid the question and call him some kind of wierdo, impotent pervert....
WTF?
Man this stuff bugs me. :(
I would also note that the problems noted in the above post with respect to societal attitudes seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the institution of marriage per se. EEK, I don't understand your comment at all in all honesty, but I'm a man and kinda dumb that way... :cool:
WSO - because of how our society views sex as being debasing//animalistic/defiling and the exaltation of chastity, YES, men who want sex who marry women who don't pretty much end up very sad persons.
But society does NOT condone FORCING people to have sex and continual pressure (even if just excessive pleading) to have sex is a form of abuse. The person receiving the pressure to have sex is the one who determines if it is abuse or not.
Add to that a woman saying "Oh, honey. I love the fur coat! Thank you!" who then jumps into bed with him, as a reward, and you can see what a MESS the entire system can become. Men think it is all about money and shop to find the best bargain they can buy. Women give themselves up to the highest bidderand seek control of him through withholding, or not, sex.
Since masturbation removes her from the equation thereby lessening her hold on him ala "I am the source of his pleasure" - she doesn't like him masturbating. Of course she will disguise this as her "feeling inadequate" and everyone will think of her as being the victim. Others will see her as being married to sex fiend while the reality is that he's married to a controlling woman.
There has to be a balance that acknowledges the validity of both partners.
I don't know why you brought up "FORCING people to have sex and continual pressure" when the guy in the article said "I accept that I'll never be able to make love to my wife as often as I would like,... " and while the man tried to convince to have sex as often as he masturbated, he seems to have given up trying, as even he says he "TRIED." Note the past tense, as in, he's no longer trying to convince her...
Otherwise, I concur with your post, though I most certainly do not agree with all the horse manure that results from the situation.
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2885380.aspx?ArticleID=2220155
It's good to see that some of commentators on the article have at least some sense.
and more here:
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2885070.aspx?ArticleID=2220155
And I've gone a bit off topic here so I'll shut it down....
This letter writer says it best:
"Prudie missed the boat on the masturbating guy...
The issue is control of one's own sexual fulfillment. It seems to me that everyone has a basic right to control their own fulfillment, subject to respect for their commitments to their partner -- i.e., don't try to force the partner, and don't take your desire to someone else. The letter writer is meeting those obligations.
The guy ACCEPTS that he will not get it with his wife and wants to "do it himself." Since his wife finds this objectionable, Prudie's response is that he does it too much! Why would Prudie presume there's something unhealthy about this level of desire? The writer sounds pretty level headed, and if taken at face value, his wife is inappropriately trying to chastise him as sexually abnormal.
Prudie's reaction means the wife controls the husband's degree of sexual fulfillment. The letter writer's attitude is far healthier than Prudie's -- he at least respects his wife's desire to have it less, but doesn't want to sacrifice his own pleasure. His attitude is a compromise, Prudie's isn't. That doesn't work for Prudie; she wants the wife'a attitude to control not only his access to sex, but masturbation too.
"
What kind of view is that? When my friends joke about their wives and / or girlfriends having their balls in a jar, is this what they mean? Crikey! Why ever get into a relationship (from a sexual standpoint that is...)?
WSO - yeah he TRIED as in past tense BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE PAST DISAPPEAR. BECAUSE of that past - even the slightest hint now will set her off.
Why do men do this? "Oh that is all in the past so now it no longer should have any bearing on the present". BAH! How utterly silly that is.
He fuskced up earlier and now must pay the price of his error. Tis a shame I agree, but to say erase the past and give him a "get out jail" card now - that's just foolish.
Frankly they should divorce but, that's his call.
For centuries men have controlled their women to the point of even debating whether women even had souls so I find it VERY IRONIC that after only 40 years or so of women clawing some power back - the men are whining. Yeah, women rule sex. Deal with it.
And the war of the sexes rages on and on and on and on...
Thanks for the reminder of that EEK. I will remember to keep my distance.
WSO - I said this pertains in general. Some women do not subscribe or have broken out of this pattern. But facts remain facts. As long as a man doesn't whine about how hard his life is to me, he's fine.