When the sex war is won prostitutes should be shot as collaborators for their terrible betrayal of all women. – Julie Burchill
Domestic sows are often subject to a perverse and horrifying behavioral abnormality called “savaging”, or cannibalistic infanticide; in plainer language, they eat their own young. The behavior is thought to be caused by fear, stress or unsanitary conditions, but it is also noted that sows which have done it once are prone to do it again. Though humans are not subject to this behavior in a literal sense, there are a number of women who tend to viciously attack others as part of a broader rejection of their own femininity; I call them neofeminists. And like disturbed sows, neofeminists reserve their most vicious attacks for those one would least expect them to target, in this case other women.
The reason, I suspect, lies in the differing ways in which men and women view our bodies. For a man, the body is a vehicle; he gets signals from it such as hunger, pain, sexual desire, etc and though he’s forced to respond to those signals he still views them as something outside his ego. In the sea of organic life a male is someone on a raft: He is supported by the sea and can perceive it all around him, and it has powerful and often overwhelming effects on him, but he is ALWAYS outside of it and indeed fears being swallowed up by it. But for women our psyches are inextricably bound up in the body; we are immersed in that sea, swimming in it, surrounded by it on all sides, and the signals from it are not merely messages from somewhere else but thoughts in our own brains. No man can understand the way women think of food or sex, and pregnancy might as well be science fiction to them. Starting in the early teens the female body undergoes catastrophic changes (unlike the comparatively gradual and subtle male ones) and every month we are reminded of the fact that Mother Nature is in control and we have little choice but to obey her demands. This is not merely a physical thing but a mental one; our feelings, perceptions and thoughts are altered by the internal tides and they’re only a pale reflection of the changes produced by pregnancy.
So it should come as no surprise that some female intellectuals reject their own femininity, in extreme cases violently so by embracing male dress, grooming, mannerisms and lifestyles. It isn’t about “male power” as they claim publicly; it’s about rejecting female powerlessness over our bodies, a state they wrongfully blame on men because the truth, that it’s the doing of the bitch goddess Nature, is too overwhelming. Men and political systems can be fought, but Nature cannot be, so neofeminists adhere to the ridiculous “social construction of gender” ideology as a way of whistling past the graveyard. Because they’re so miserable and maladjusted they resent anyone who isn’t, and from this resentment grows envy of men for being free of the tyranny of a female body, and envy of women who have learned to live comfortably with it. Envy inevitably decays into hate, and the ultimate targets of that hatred are prostitutes because we not only embrace our bodies and use them to enrich ourselves in a way denied to neofeminists, but also because we enable men to procure sex on their own terms rather than having to dance to every ridiculous demand made by some woman with an exaggerated sense of her own irreplaceability.
The neofeminists are fond of pretending that prostitution is an outgrowth of patriarchy, but this is clearly absurd; the highest status of the prostitute is found in the ancient semi-matriarchal cultures, and the lowest in the most patriarchal ones. Married women in such cultures often resent the freedom and power of the prostitute, and as in the case of the neofeminists such resentment gives rise to hatred. But it wasn’t until the decay of first-wave feminism that this hatred actually turned into widespread legislative repression, and even then the persecution was represented as a self-evident moral issue. A century ago there was no need for moral crusaders to lie about whores; the truth of our lives was enough to justify a war on our profession according to the prevailing Christian morality of the time. But after the sexual revolution relaxed the sexual mores of amateurs, it became much more difficult for anti-whore crusaders to whip up public feeling against us with the mere truth, so lies became necessary.
First came the traditional police lies about prostitution “attracting crime”, which equated escorts with streetwalkers and ignored the fact that it’s criminalization which creates the “crime” of prostitution in the first place. But when prostitutes started participating in second-wave feminism and sympathy for us began to grow, early neofeminists found it necessary to construct elaborate lies about our degradation, bad childhoods, drug abuse, etc so as to destroy our credibility without openly attacking us (which at the time would’ve been recognized as the flagrant violation of sisterhood it is). Whores then became victims who, though blameless, couldn’t be taken seriously because we were so screwed up.
This mythology is still the prevailing one, and gave rise to the Swedish Model and the “sex trafficking” cult, but unfortunately for its adherents there are a certain number of outspoken harlots who dare to challenge that view and prove its fallaciousness by simply showing ourselves to be intelligent, reasonable and well-adjusted women who aren’t “victimized” by anybody. And because the internet has made us far more visible than we used to be, a new and even more vicious lie became necessary. Neofeminists now claim that though the vast majority of prostitutes are trafficked, coerced victims, those of us who speak out for sex worker rights are a tiny minority who actually participate in the degradation of other women! Some neofeminists prefer the subtle approach, claiming that though we may indeed be free and happy our “bad example” helps to make the sexual enslavement of “millions” possible, while others (such as those I discussed Friday) prefer the more overt approach typified by the Julie Burchill epigram to this column. But a few (such as those who seem to have schooled “Bedelia”) have actually dreamed up a conspiracy theory of “Elders of Zion”-like proportions. These lunatics imagine a vast, powerful “pimp lobby” funded by pornography which actively promotes sex trafficking and “paid rape” (yet somehow lacks the influence to get prostitution decriminalized even in Nevada), and that sex worker advocates such as the leaders of SWOP, well-known writers such as Tracy Quan and Belle de Jour, and even bloggers like myself and a number of my readers are all in the employ of this “pro-prostitution” cabal.
Nobody who hates femininity as much as the neofeminists do can possibly be accepted by rational people as speaking for all women, but few of their followers are rational and the politicians who embrace their rhetoric do so not out of belief, but expediency (neofeminist dogma gives them an excuse for more repressive legislation). So I welcome neofeminists’ increasingly overt attacks on sex workers; the more vicious they grow, the less the public will accept that they speak for all women, and the zanier their pronouncements about vast pimp conspiracies become the less their arguments will be taken seriously by normal people. Sooner or later, the only people listening to their nasty grunting and squealing will be the few benighted souls who choose to inhabit the same philosophical sty.
i had forgotten about the burchill quote. did you ever look at this other hating story? don’t miss the comments…
http://www.lauraagustin.com/important-enemies-hating-sex-work-academics-or-hating-research
No, I hadn’t seen that one; thank you! Bindel and Farley on one thread, wow! Though Farley did manage to hold her tongue and mimic rationality for the length of one comment, unlike Bindel and her “just joking”. Bindel’s behavior as described in that thread by those who have encountered her is precisely the sort of thing I’m talking about in this column. Bindel, Burchill, Farley, et al…mad sows all. 🙁
“In the sea of organic life a male is someone on a raft: He is supported by the sea and can perceive it all around him, and it has powerful and often overwhelming effects on him, but he is ALWAYS outside of it and indeed fears being swallowed up by it.”
Yeah gotta disagree with you there M&M’s. We’re not always outside of it.
I understand theoretically, not experientially, how every bite of food and every sexual thing that a woman does is agonized over, worrying about if it’s going to make you fat, your reputation, your feelings about it, what the other girls and other people will think. I get that.
But men aren’t oblivious to nor totally outside of the experience of our bodies, so just because our every experience isn’t rooted in this extreme subjectivity, it doesn’t mean that we’re not influenced in our psyches by the internal tides of our bodies.
That’s why I used the metaphor of a raft rather than a ship; it’s right at the surface of the ocean and is constantly swamped by waves, but part of him can usually stay above it unless it gets really bad and stormy. See? 😉
“but part of him can usually stay above it unless it gets really bad and stormy.”
…and you’re saying that women can’t?
Correct. We’re always surrounded by it, immersed in it. Male mystics, thinkers and obsessives can almost entirely detach themselves from organic reality; think of the way a man can get so immersed in work or even a game that he doesn’t stop to eat, bathe or sleep. But it’s a rare woman indeed who can ignore those things unless she’s seriously disturbed. And even if she’s one of the few who can ignore other biological messages, once a month she must succumb to the call of nature no matter what her will-power.
Well, yes, that metaphor is half of the story (or maybe 40%, we men can get lost in sensuality too you know), the other half of my primary experience of my body as a man is that it is a tool of my will, it is a mechanism for agency, it does things. It runs, it plays sport, it gives speeches, it picks up tools and makes things, and much of what it can do it couldn’t do when it was a boy, because of lot of basic “doing ” involves a certain amount of strength in the hands and arms, turning a screwdriver, getting a rusty bolt to move, lifting a piece of wood into position, and so on.
My boss is a butch lesbian with short hair and dresses, sits and (kind of in a silly kind of way) walks like a man. I get on well with her and she’s a good boss and helps forward my career – but I’ve noticed that she does things that to me look silly. She does “boot camp” style exercise sessions with a personal trainer who used to be in the military, lots of lots of exercise, and she isn’t even remotely athletic. At the end of it all she is still a soft skinned, soft armed, small handed, small shouldered, pudgy middle aged woman. The irony is that as I approach 50 I’m coming to terms with the fact that my body can’t do the things it could in its 20’s or even 30’s. I’ve been the guy who runs through the forest alone, climbs cliffs, swims rapids, hunts deer etc., and now I haven’t quite got the body that does that so easily any more, and in not to many years it won’t be capable of it at all. That’s no big deal, I accept my aging male body. But this woman, she hasn’t even got to first base and accepted she’s got a female body…I mean a VERY female body, in the very traditonal sense. In another life with another ideology she would have been a soft nurturing mother figure, and fitted it well, but she seems to be in utter rebellion against that. That’s her choice and good for her I suppose, but it’s still a flight from reality.
“Correct. We’re always surrounded by it, immersed in it. But it’s a rare woman indeed who can ignore those things unless she’s seriously disturbed. And even if she’s one of the few who can ignore other biological messages, once a month she must succumb to the call of nature no matter what her will-power.”
Then…no wonder women are always, often erroneously, accusing men of being insensitive and oblivious. Just another projection.
Give that man a cigar! 🙂
As a 58-year-old long-time lifestyler and open-married (married 34 years) who has always enjoyed the interpersonal as much as the sexual intimacy with the many women I’ve partnered with, I’ve had ample opportunity to observe that key gender difference.
One lady with whom I enjoyed a long relationship was menopausal and was receiving Hormone Replacement Therapy which included testosterone. Testosterone had worked (in her case) to restore the libido she’d lost during perimenopause.
To maximize her libido, she’d requested that the testosterone component of her HRT be dosaged at the maximum; consequently, her T level, though still within the “normal” range for women, was what for her was far higher than what had been her natural “normal”. Besides the higher-than-ever libido that extra testosterone generated, she also noticed another effect: she realized she was substantially less emotionally sensitive and more oblivious than she’d ever been in her life.
And, as you’ve explained Maggie, that’s the reality. Men’s hormonal biology indeed does make us less emotionally sensitive and “clueless”. Not an excuse, of course — awareness that this substantial sensitivity gap between the genders biologically exists can go far in compensating for it when in best interests. Men need to know that women aren’t deliberately trying to be “too sensitive” and women need to realize that men aren’t deliberately trying to be “insensitive”, and that the difference is in the hormones and the “wiring”.
… on the other hand, it would suggest that we simply aren’t as impacted as women by the things that affect them so, so we actually are insensitive/oblivious to those things.
The fact that the quote at the beginning of this article could be uttered after the events of the twentieth century shows either an incredible historical ignorance or an appalling lack if human empathy. Either way I’m very glad I am no longer on the same idealogical side as this woman. The fact that she still has any moral legitamacy in her movement speaks volumes about its degeneracy.
It’s amazing how often neofeminists talk of shooting people; it just goes to demonstrate that their entire motivating force is hate. Were I the dictatrix the best punishment I could think of would be to put all of them on an island together; within a year they would have killed each other off. 🙁
A common male chuckle in years past was, “So many women, so little time,” an in “I’d never live long enough to fuck all the women I’d like to.”
The neofeminist rejoinder was, “So many men, so little ammunition,” as in “Too bad we can’t kill all of them.”
So where the average man dreams of a long life spent making love to one willing woman after another (there is no suggesting of rape in the saying), with the only regret being that even a long life is not long enough, and most women have equally harmless dreams, neofeminists dream of genocide, and somehow see consensual sex as morally equivalent to murder.
God help us, and not just men (they want to shoot women too).
You know, the more I think about it the more I wonder if I was being unfair to sows in comparing neofeminists to them; at least the sows have the excuse of not knowing any better. 🙁
It really bothers me because I know what the practical result of that rhetoric looks like. I know that most people who like to speak like this have no idea what it really looks (and worse smells) like and that’s very frustrating to me.
What’s worse is that so many women who disagree with them are willing to make excuses for them; take this Jezebel article on Satoshi Kanazawa’s column about me. Though the author, Anna North, has a very low opinion of Kanazawa, she says absolutely nothing bad about me (presumably because I’m female). And she likewise refuses to say anything bad about the neofeminists, preferring instead to pretend that an insult them is an insult against ALL feminists even though she (quietly) repudiates their tyrannical orthodoxy. By defending these monsters against well-deserved criticism, mainstream feminists lump themselves together with them…and then wonder why feminism has become a dirty word. 🙁
And some of us dream of a long life spent making love to one woman who’s willing one time after another.
Honest 🙂 I have scientific evidence of this. 😉
I read the article.
Loved reading an entire comment wall of vitriol. Now I know why Kanazawa disabled comments. Almost all the commentors are childless (not in a bad way or a good way, just a matter-of-fact way) women who refuse to even look at his writings objectively or the basic premise of evolutionary psychology simply because they find the idea that women might be wired to feeling fulfilled through the joy of motherhood to be “patriarchal.” And the fact that the author is a male who is honest enough to admit that he doesn’t have much luck with the ladies is merely seen as added motive for him to reinforce such “patriarchal” ideas because he is “SOL” and bitter at women for not dishing it out on demand. *eyeroll* Now I know why women are more prone to hysteria; they’re already reading too much into things so they go crazy when it increases just a bit. /jk.
THEY DIDN’T EVEN LOOK AT HIS BLOG, THEY JUST LUMPED THEMSELVES IN WITH THE EXTREMIST NEOFEMS WITHOUT CHECKING HIS DEFINITION OF FEMINISTS! *facepalm*
There’s even some girl (I shall not dignify her by calling her a lady or even a woman) saying, “At least sociology gets it right.” Obviously she has never actually met a sociology professor 🙂 I’ll admit my experiences are hardly representative of all sociologists, but I must say that they don’t have a good track record with me. Retards, all of them. And until I find at least ONE sociologist who doesn’t just parrot the textbook and wallow in their prejudices, I am not going to detract that statement. This coming from someone who copy-pasted a biased af “survey” off the internet because my half-senile “professor” (a curse upon whoever gave that oxymoronic toad her degree) thought my actual research was heretical and threw it out the window. And I’m too lazy to construct a biased survey. You do what you have to do for a passing grade 🙁
I saw only one male in there and frankly, if he hadn’t claimed to have been “enlightened” by the writings on Jezbel, I think they would’ve whopped his gluteus maximus into the 18th century for ‘mansplaining.’ And I didn’t even finish reading all the comments. There’s only so much toxicity I can stand.
As someone who found Maggie’s blog in the first place because of Kanazawa’s posts and having read all of them on his now-defunct Psych Today blog, I would like to point out the following:
Evo Psych is a new field which has almost zero to minimal data to work with.
It provides evolutionary explanations & predictions for human behaviour under ideal conditions.
Most of psychology is founded in conjecture, evo psych all the more so because we finite humans do not have the infinite time required to actually witness human evolution at work.
Most of the content on Psych Today is “dumbed down” for mass consumption and extreme examples are given, clearly a mistake because people are dumber than smart scientists think and they read things the wrong way. I doubt half the people understand all the terms used or even pay attention.
I would
absolutely lovelike to go on, but this is getting too long. Good night.There’s many in society, unfortunately, that PRIDE themselves on having NO empathy and also NO TACT. It’s seen as a form of strength. God help us. You can see this evil mentality also in how manners are practiced less and less and are also seen as “weak”. 1 big proof of this to me is how few people are even taught anymore to give condolences to anyone who’s had any kind of death in their family, trauma, etc. It’s no wonder those who go through any trauma feel more alone than they should have to. Along with this goes how empathy is ONLY shown to people that share your interests, lifestyle, etc. That’s just as disgusting and they’re not even embarrassed by it.
As an MVS, that quote from this ###*** Burchill is infuriating to me, to say the least. Even if I weren’t an MVS, it STILL would be evil, cruel and plain TACTLESS to me. I have the feeling she’s 1 of those who PRIDES herself on her cruel tactlessness like many in society do. DISGUSTING!
I’m confused … what do you mean by “MVS”?
I checked Wikipedia and found:
Multiple Virtual Storage
Minimum variance set – the set of attainable investment portfolios which minimise risk.
Materialistic Values Scale
Mennonite Voluntary Service
Microsoft Visual Studio
Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine (Ministerstvo Vnutrishnih Sprav – Ukrainian: Міністерство Внутрішніх Справ)
Mucuri Airport, in Buenos Aires (IATA code MVS)
Munivest Florida Fund (NYSE symbol MVS)
MVS, an IBM mainframe computer operating system
MVS Comunicaciones, a Mexican media company
MVS Mediawiki Client a command line MediaWiki client
Neo Geo MVS (Multi Video System) arcade game system
Maritime Volunteer Service A UK Charity supplying Maritime Training and Support
Mezinárodní všeodborový svaz, a Czechoslovak trade union federation
Please … what do you mean by MVS?
It stands for “murder victim survivor”. We’re the surviving family/friends of murder victims. I think the reason you didn’t find it while searching is it’s the invention of the women who runs a support/activism, etc., message board for MVS. As far as I know she came up with the term and I started using it once I joined there. I like it because it’s short and memorable and people asking what IS an MVS gives me an opening to educate, etc., which is very needed.
Fortunately it seems that these kinds of feminists are relatively rare, at least in web sites like Feministing.com, or people I’ve personally met.
As I understand it, this line of thinking is only “new/neo” relative to the second wave. The early eighties was the heyday of Andrea Dworkin and her colleagues. The extreme rhetoric and violent attitudes pretty much killed off the mainstream’s interest in feminism. I think most of them called themselves “Radical” feminists, and I text book of mine distuinguished between radical, marxist, and liberal feminists. Though I’ve never seriously researched this.
Supposedly we are in the third wave of femminism, which despite being newer is in closer agreement with Maggie the archeofeminist. There is support for sex workers, or at least from those who also call themselves “sex-positive”. Third wave feminism is largely spawned from women studies classes, it can be academic to a fault, so Julie Bindel’s claim from Laura Augustin’s link would be seen as dangerous nonsense by most. Mostly third wave feminism spawned because of a need for inclusivity, so claiming there is but one model for female sexuality or femininity would never fly.
Unfortunately Maggie seems rather essentialist. As a third wave feminist I prefer to look for sociological rather than biological explanation for gendered behavior. In this case, while the monthly reminder is obviously biological, one could say women’s special connection with their physical bodies comes from a need to always look physically appealing in order to recieve social approval from others. Beauty is considered to be more important for women, and most of the time it’s not the ‘inner’ kind. Meanwhile the rational mind of men is more often exalted. A guy could afford to ignore his body if it means excelling mentally. A woman is more likely to be hated if she’s smart but ugly.
I also feel it necessary to point out that I rarely see the term “neo feminist” in feminist discussions, except on this website. Also, googling “archeofeminist” as one word has only 450 results, the first four are this very blog. But I guess having your own terminology isn’t that bad.
Sorry for the rant, I feel that Maggie has some worthwhile (though sadly essentialist) opinions and knowledge when it comes the subject of sex work.
They’re not remotely rare enough, considering their powerful influence on law and public policy.
The terms “neofeminist” and “archeofeminist” are my own, as explained in the text box to the right. I coined “neofeminist” because these people believe that women need to be “reinvented”, to become a “new” kind of woman. I feel, on the other hand, that the “old kind” is just fine and needs no change.
As for the belief in “social construction of gender”, I’m afraid it isn’t supported by science and therefore has no existence outside “women’s studies” and sociology classes. The need for women to look beautiful to attract men to perpetuate the species has nothing to do with “society” and everything to do with biology; denying that aspect of the tyranny of nature is EXACTLY what I’m discussing here, even if you aren’t as violent about it as the neofeminists are.
I find it fascinating that you find my views “sad” because they differ from your own and are based in science rather than political rhetoric; the “third wave” is supposed to be inclusive of differing viewpoints but alas, I find that usually isn’t so (except for those views which it’s politically correct to tolerate). And that means “third-wave” feminism already contains the seeds which will destroy it as first- and second-wave feminism were destroyed. Perhaps “fourth-wave feminism” will embrace science and stop fighting against human nature, but rather work to dismantle the harm that collectivism has wrought to women.
Gender cannot be socially constructed due to the same logical reasoning that doesn’t allow it to be a continuum.
Gender is gender. Male or female, penis or vagina. It just is. Perhaps medicine can construct it but society certainly cannot.
Oh, you mean that “social construction of gender” refers to gender roles? Duh Kelly! But wait…thinking..hang on..don’t wanna hurt myself..
It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.
Gender roles are at the most basic level determined by gender. I’m not saying that society can’t play a part, hell if it didn’t then Dworkin and crew must have come from another planet 🙂
But Nature still ain’t gonna change at it’s core despite the most valiant attempts at social construction. Therefore, gender is not socially constructed. It is constructed by God.
Clearly a much more rational statement.
What I think is amazing is how so many social liberals accept transsexuals, yet also believe in social construction of gender. The existence of extreme transsexuals (those who actually display the psychological characteristics of the opposite gender from that of the genitals) is PROOF that gender isn’t socially constructed. If all gendered behavior is programmed by society, it should be impossible for a boy raised in the same environment as another boy to display feminine gendered behavior and psychology, yet it does happen. The only valid explanation for this is that gender originates in the brain, and extreme transsexuals have some problem with the brain structure which governs gender psychology.
There was a well-publicized case a few years ago in which the botched circumcision of one of a set of twin boys resulted in severing of the penis. The parents consulted a psychologist who advised that they should simply do a sex-change on the male infant and raise him as a girl, and since gender is “socially constructed” it shouldn’t make a difference. The doctor was became a big proponent of the “social construction” model and even used the case as “proof” of his views. Unfortunately, nature refused to comply with theory; the “girl” grew up unruly, disruptive, uninterested in feminine activities and eventually violent. “She” bullied other girls and acted out sexually toward them, and when “she” was a teenager announced to “her” parents that “she” wanted a sex change to become a boy. At that point the parents broke down and told the mutilated son the truth, and he later underwent a successful genital reconstruction (it couldn’t be called a “sex change” because he was never really female).
Edit: Readers have supplied me with the boy’s name, David Reimer, which I’ve linked in Wikipedia above. There’s also a book, As Nature Made Him. Sadly the trauma of forced gender reassignment and attempts at “social reconstruction” took an irreversible psychological toll, and David Reimer committed suicide in 2004, at the age of 38, after his wife told him she was leaving him.
You forgot to mention that the psychologist in question had suggested that to the parents as a part of his own non-consensual sick little experiment on gender. Even his brother thought his “sister” was a boy at six years old and that “she” peed standing up even though her mom told “her” to sit.
And OMG, he committed suicide?! My psych book even provided his photo, but didn’t mention that part. I guess some people in high places want this social-biological gender debate to stay….
For the record, biological differences have been found between the brains of not just men & women, but also between straight & gay men & women. There is a region of the brain’s hypothalamus which is significantly larger in straight men (largest) & lesbians (bigger than gays) as compared to gay men (bigger than hetero women) & hetero women (smallest). They shrank this region in sheep and made gay rams, for heaven’s sake!
Yes, they observed them ramming their penises into each other!Gender is biological and sexuality is a spectrum.
URK! This is what happens when I post when I’m getting sleepy.
Little correction: it should be straight men > gay men > lesbians > straight women in order of decreasing size of hypothalamus cell cluster.
“As a third wave feminist I prefer to look for sociological rather than biological explanation for gendered behavior. In this case, while the monthly reminder is obviously biological, one could say women’s special connection with their physical bodies comes from a need to always look physically appealing in order to recieve social approval from others.”
Or, it could be said that women’s special connection with their bodies comes from their innate biological instinct to attract the most nearly-optimal mate(s) for their potential offspring and those offspring’s nurture; that women’s need for a broader social approval likewise stems from related offspring-nurturing instincts; and that societies develop behaviors and customs which, while no doubt further affecting women’s attitudes and behaviors for the “good” or “bad”, are ultimately reflecting women’s instinctual drives. Women’s instincts cause the society, not the society women’s behavior.
In which case, efforts to modify or eliminate “undesireable” behaviors from a sociological rather than biological explanation are doomed to fail in the long term, akin to seeking to eliminate overeating and obesity by proceeding from the premise that the need to eat is “learned” and not instinctive.
I think we should try to understand that some women naturally feel a lot of anger. They were mentally castrated as children and doomed to a life of sexual dysfunction. I would be a spiteful bitch, too, if I were in that position.
If more fortunate and insightful women like Maggie applied their gifts to try and break the generational cycle of mental castration, e.g. by pointing it out and even harping on it (as I do, but I’m a man so women don’t listen to me or they accuse me of having ulterior motives), then there would be hope for the next generation.
We can also choose to be spiteful if we have an abusive past. OR we can choose to NOT be like our abusers and teach people instead. I wouldn’t stay in being frigid from verbal sexual abuse. I stayed in it too many years which is common when you’ve abused. However, a family tragedy shocked me out of this and other things, thank God. I then worked to NOT be frigid. We don’t have to stay in what we’re raised in or the many lies in society. But, there’s many abused people who need to see there’s ANOTHER way to live. This is why those of us who were abused and then did the work to recover have a duty to speak out whenever possible.
Hey, you never told me you were a part of some Illuminati-type organization. I gotta see THAT clubhouse. The rec room must be AMAZING.
Well, that’s ’cause I didn’t know myself until Bedelia told me! According to her I’m being handsomely paid to further the “pimp agenda”, but I haven’t seen a single check despite working for many hundreds of hours on this blog since last July. Since according to the neofeminists you’re part of an Illuminati-type organization yourself (the almighty Patriarchy), could you ask one of your leaders to call one of the leaders of the “Pimp Lobby” to ask about my checks? Because obviously my organization must answer to yours somehow, since neofeminists tell us prostitution is a “tool of patriarchy”. 😐
be sure to tell them I want my fucking check too, dammit! does the Patriarchy think I work for free? 🙂
Beneath this pimp hat lies a hive mind.
Do you think it has a chance of winning the Bulwer-Lytton award?
Actually, the first seven links to appear in a Google search of “archeofeminism” are Maggie’s and the eighth is to an article quite coincidentally posted on the same day as this one (March 27) on Psychology Today by Satoshi Kanazawa titled “Are All Women Essentially Prostitutes” with a byline of “A perspective from someone who knows what she’s talking about”. Not so coincidentally, the author is referring to Maggie.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/are-all-women-essentially-prostitutes
Thanks for mentioning that, Kelly! The author is the same evolutionary biologist I talked about in my column of March 12th, and if you look at both pieces you’ll see we both quoted my email to him. 🙂
did you think I hadn’t already read that silly girl?
🙂
“The Tyranny of Nature.”
This is pretty much it. People can spend all of their brief years on Earth trying to fight this if they want to…and when you die, girls will still love attention, young girls will still have to deal with menstrual cycles, women will still trade ass for cash either formally or informally, men will still love rough activities and desire variety in women, and go to great financial lengths to bed the most beautiful women that they can, and sex will still lead to babies. Because this is how the species has been perpetuated from day one.
The End.
Exactly. And that’s why adherence to “social construction of gender” fairy-tales is ultimately a futile exercise. For homosexuals whose normal lives don’t involve sex differences I suppose it could be an effective defense mechanism in the same way that refusing to believe in evolution might shield the ego of one whose work didn’t involve biology or history. But for a sex worker, psychologist, parent, anthropologist or anyone in a heterosexual relationship to believe in such nonsense is tantamount to a geographer believing in a flat Earth.
You can define “pay” so broadly on purpose that it gets to the point where it’s really sad and ridiculous. Why is this mentality so popular that EVERYTHING is some kind of commodity? God help us. It’s possible to have sex with barely any cost involved. I did that for a # of years and I purposely did things to go against the evil dating “rules” and also the everything is a commodity mentality. I also went against other stuff in society that I’d hated since I was a teenager and didn’t want any part of (and still don’t). Why does anyone HAVE to say until they die things are just going to be a certain way? Why not go against it? If you’re only 1 person going against it there’s nothing wrong with it. Why give into systems you’re convinced are evil?
Then I have to applaud your courage on that one.
“As a third wave feminist I prefer to look for sociological rather than biological explanation for gendered behavior.”
My children prefer to look for the marshmallows in their Lucky Charms rather than the much more common pieces of oat based cereal in the bowl, but this does not mean that the oat based cereal pieces are not there. In fact, they greatly outnumber the marshmallow pieces.
A man cannot afford to ignore his body to excel mentally unless the mental excelling is earning him a lot of money.
A woman is quite likely to be hated if she is smart but ugly and if she is stupid but beautiful. However, a woman who is both smart and beautiful will most certainly be hated.
I become so immersed in what I am doing that I forget to bathe, eat, or sleep on a fairly regular basis and I am not seriously disturbed, only slightly so.
Clearly, comparing neofeminists to sows is unfair to the sows as is comparing their home to the neofeminist’s “philisophical sty”. I would much rather lay my physical body in the mud with the sows than poison my mind with neofeminist propaganda. LOL aside from that the comparison cracked me the fuck up. “Philosophical sty” hahahahahaha just think of the look on Ms. Farley’s face at being compared to a sow 🙂
Brilliant analogy! 🙂
But I’ll bet you notice the filth long before many men would. 😉
I can just hear her oinks of indignation! 😀
“But I’ll bet you notice the filth long before many men would.”
It’s not that we don’t *notice* the filth, it’s just not high on our list of priorities 🙂
Ok great. Emily and I are going to be giggling about Lucky Charms till this afternoon and won’t get any work done. Thanks…
My husband prefers the Malt-o-Meal bagged version, “Marshmallow Mateys” (which have nautical shapes). 🙂
“But Nature still ain’t gonna change at it’s core despite the most valiant attempts at social construction. Therefore, gender is not socially constructed. It is constructed by God.”
Then that means that God loves whores.
….I don’t know if that’s a 🙂 or a 😐
Well, of course She does, did you ever doubt it? 😉
As has been mentioned here before, in some religions harlots are holy. The Old Testament is not very favorable towards prostitutes in general, but some of them are presented as favorable, even heroic (Rehab of Jericho).
In the New Testament, Jesus seemed to get along just fine with working girls. This was used against Him at trial.
I don’t really know where Buddhism or Shintoism are on this. I really should, though, and will look it up tonight.
Hinduism had (and to some degree still has) devadasi, and they are interesting.
Buddhism borrowed the Apsaras (Cloud Nymphs) from Hinduism and we know that they’re all halfway hoes who are occasionally coerced into doing the gods’ dirty work. Shinto shrines have virgin priestesses (Miko) so I guess they don’t like pros. The Japanese always show a harlot as someone to be… pitied. She’s that elegant lady with the sad eyes who beckons men into her glittery palace. They always insinuate that the happy smile is a facade and that she’s actually either a twisted woman or a weeping goddess on the inside. Whatever the depiction, they’re always shown as imperfect humans, painfully so.
The Devadasi system has been used and abused a lot. It’s not legal anymore. Devdasi literally means “handmaiden of god” but that isn’t exactly what happens. At it’s core, the idea is that a girl will be married off to the temple god (literally married to a polygamous stone idol) or adopted by the goddess and then she’s responsible for looking after the temple and its finances. That idea in itself isn’t a problem, it’s the execution & the aftermath.
The girl could be anyone, the rules for initiation varied by region. Some people even used the system to get rid of unwanted daughters or stepdaughters, the one thing that I know of is that if a girl’s hair gets inextricable tangles. Then she’s made a Devdasi. And she never combs her hair again. If a boy pees blood, then even he can be made to dress in drag and made a Devdasi. The initiated have no voice. There is no question of consent. And sex is not even a part of the job description. They’re supposed to perform various religious functions and beg alms for their own upkeep. The temple donation box is for the priests. Imagine: a girl/ boy all decked up like a bride going from door to door begging alms. Of course men make passes at her because they think that she’s now public property. Even the boys in drag get raped; nobody views him as a masculine person anymore. There’s no one to speak out for them, they live in a house of god without any locks so they’re not safe even in their own house. And if they end up pregnant, the children are aborted. There’s no choice there either. Sure, when she’s older, she’s viewed as a kind of Shaman or Oracle, but by then she has been through hell and back; who wouldn’t be able to look at a man & tell whether he’s a theif or a murderer or if he will never get married or have children after being raped by men she thought she could’ve trusted. Such systematic oppression does tend to teach you how to read people with alarming accuracy. A real prostitute is better off than a Devdasi.
Reformed neofeminist here. Two things happened to me that opened my eyes completely to the fact that gender is a biological construct, not a social one.
One, I had children. Two girls and one boy. And from the moment they emerged from the womb, they have taught me that boys are boys and girls are girls. I think feminism has been really great in loosening the strictness of gender roles – my little boy loves cuddles and kisses and hugs just as much as my girls, but his kises are HUGE, his hugs are FIERCE – he is just so much more physical and exhuberant. And my girls can be just as exhuberant, but they are still and quiet and contemplative far more often.
And then, I turned 40. I am clearly in the last stages of fertility and I have suddenly found the motivation to get out and run everyday (to keep my body looking tight and young), and I can barely stand to be around younger men, I wanna fuck them sooooo badly. I’m married, and I truly love my husband, but God help me, my eggs are screaming out for some young virile swimmers.
Explain that one socially. Since when are 40 year old women allowed or encouraged to openly lust ofter twenty year old men? I do, because it makes the most biological sense. Socially, I will never act on those impulses.
I think I’m really going to like you, Maggie. I found you through Satoshi’s blog. I’ll spend the next few days reading all your older posts. I’m really looking forward to (un)learning and knowing myself better.
Thanks for making your writing public. I heart the internet!
Andrea, every so often I get an email or comment which lets me know all my hard work is really worthwhile, and that I’m really reaching people. Yours is the one for this week, and I sincerely thank you for taking the time to read and comment. If I were speaking this rather than typing it one-fingered, I think I would have a catch in my voice. Please, visit often and comment often; I really need to hear voices like yours! 🙂
That’s another thing that maybe I’ll come to understand some day…how and why would God/Nature hard wire us with desires that:
1) For heterosexuals, cause so much difficulty
2) are clearly common and natural among people, yet can’t be acted upon without great penalty, as in Andrea’s example?
Dear TheHumanScorch, your questions are GREAT 1’s! I really wonder if I’ll EVER resolve my struggles with my religious beliefs and having an arrangement, etc. I really do and it really gets me down at times. I resolved all the struggles I had with my past alcoholism and religious beliefs at least a few years ago. But, the sexual area…no, and wonder if I ever will. In my mind when I’m not in a sexual mood, I DO understand why God put strict limits on sex in the Bible. But, when I’m thinking about sexy stuff, or having sex, etc., that’s when the struggle comes. I imagine some on here might say: who does she think she is talking about her arrangement, etc., and also claims to be a Christian? That question isn’t unreasonable at all! I’m a Christian who has a huge struggle with her sex drive, etc., but will NEVER give up her beliefs. I purposely turned on God for at least 10 years (they were also “drinking years”) and in some ways those were the worst years of my life. I never quit believing in Him, though, and never will. 1 thing I’ve never done and am proud of it is go around preaching for people to not be wild, don’t have an arrangement, etc. I could never live with myself if I did that. I say if something is personally NOT for me, but don’t order around anyone else. A while back at a church I used to be a member of they were going to form an Alcoholics Anonymous type group. I was talking to the pastor about it and he knew I’d worked the 12 steps of AA and had some years of sobriety already. I told him I didn’t want to be asked to help run the group in ANY way because it would be hypocritical on my part because of stuff I was doing in my private life. I told him it wasn’t drinking I was doing as didn’t want him to think I’d relapsed, etc. Anyway, I couldn’t be part of any leadership type thing in church and live with myself. I still feel this way to be honest. Anyway, I’m a Christian who has problems (obviously) in the sexual area and I honestly wonder if they’ll ever be resolved. At the same time, I love God and think Jesus was the most wonderful person who ever lived, etc. I’ll never quit believing and will always be thankful for all that God has done for the world and still does. 1 comfort I have is that I’m NOT 1 of these Christians with problems who’s out preaching to others about the problems I HAVE! I’ve also talked to 2 pastors about this whole thing and that was a big relief. Anyway, thanks for listening.
What you need to understand that the institute of religion is a social construct. And it has very little responsiveness to change. You need to understand that the social mores set by religion weren’t made for this day & age. Let alone a “wild woman” like you who is so different from the average woman.
I’m not a Christian so I can’t presume to know how you feel or how your religion makes you feel, but here’s our official perspective: If you think you are committing a sin, or breaking a law, first contemplate the law in question. Check the spirit of the law, its presumptions, its reasons and who they apply to. Unless you fit in all of those facets of the law and agree with its reasons, you can safely side-step it. Afterall, killing a defenceless person when unprovoked is murder, self defence if the person is armed and provokes you, crime of passion/ lack of self control if you’re provoked by something other than violence or threat thereof, and if that person just happens to be an enemy soldier, you’re a hero! The act is the same: A kills B. But the context decides how such a simple act is described. The end may justify the means, but the means and their context define the end. 🙂
Sometimes, a different perspective can be a valuable thing.
There are outlets for you to indulge your fantasies while still maintaining your fidelity…of course your husband will need to be on board but he may be having similar fantasies. Google “the lifestyle”, “swingers”, and “couple’s clubs” for more info. Contrary to the conclusions drawn by some who comment on topics outside their area of expertise, it is quite common for the woman to broach this subject to her man and take the initiative in visiting such a venue. Interestingly, I haven’t heard much from antisex feminists regarding swingers but occasionally, lifestyle clubs have been raided and arrests made on “moral” and “public health” grounds.
“As has been mentioned here before, in some religions harlots are holy. The Old Testament is not very favorable towards prostitutes in general, but some of them are presented as favorable, even heroic (Rehab of Jericho).”
Well she was commended because she had faith when Joshua & the scout party showed up, not because she was a harlot.
“In the New Testament, Jesus seemed to get along just fine with working girls. This was used against Him at trial.”
Well, He certainly said that the prostitutes would get into the Kingdom of God before the religious people. That kind of speaks volumes. Maybe He meant those that acknowledge their need for God, or maybe he meant those that live authentic lives, true to their authentic selves.
“I don’t really know where Buddhism or Shintoism are on this. I really should, though, and will look it up tonight.
Hinduism had (and to some degree still has) devadasi, and they are interesting.”
I don’t either, I’m more familiar with Protestant Christianity as well, but in some ways I’m kind of back where I started with all this, as stated many other places by Maggie…..
are all women prostitutes?
It’s getting harder & harder to make a case against that statement.
I’ve never been a prostitute and never will be. That’s 1 reason I did things a certain way when I acted on the arrangement I have with my fiance.
“If anyone thinks women can choose to be prostitutes they also have to think that women can choose to NEVER be in ANY way in order to be fair and to give others the right to choose also.”
So you’ve made the choices that you have in your life for your own pleasure and growth, and not in exchange for cash, gifts, or favor. Kudos to you if that’s the truth.
But I think you’d have to admit that that’s the minority position.
Especially after what Maggie taught me about female sex drive. Yours again being the exception, or at least your motives, not your actual drive.
“Not every woman is a prostitute, but prostitution is the natural apotheosis of the feminine attitude.” – Georges Bataille
This doesn’t apply to everyone and it shouldn’t. If anyone thinks women can choose to be prostitutes they also have to think that women can choose to NEVER be in ANY way in order to be fair and to give others the right to choose also. Thanks for listening.
Laura, you must realize that you’re an exception to the rule. As I’ve said many times before, the only rule with no exceptions is the one which states “all rules have exceptions”. 🙂
Dear Maggie, yes, I know I’m in a minority. But, that’s how I want it to be! There’s some “majorities” I never want any part of. Some I do. Even 1 person in a group people can learn from:
http://scottwesterman.com/pipermail/motivator_scottwesterman.com/20100502/000027.html
I love the above quotes! I want to say thanks for having a fair place where someone like me can speak out. To be honest, when I 1st came here, I wasn’t thinking the best of some stuff I read on here. I’ve learned some things, though, that I NEEDED to. I know people can learn from me also. It reminds me of the 1st time I joined the debate over the death penalty online. I ended up learning a LOT from people on both sides of the issue and have made friends from those boards I consider family.
Dear thehumanscorch, the stuff I’ve said on here is true. If you want to ask him, Sailor Barsoom can vouch for me. I know mine is the minority position. BUT, that’s a motivator for me, to be honest. The truth is there’s been at least a few minority groups that have changed the world for the better. When I say it’s a motivator, it’s something that keeps me going speaking out against the evil lies like: 1 person doesn’t have the power to change anything in the world. Individuals don’t count. Small groups can’t accomplish anything. If you’re a member of a small group that shows how not “with it” you are. Those in small groups shouldn’t even bother to be heard, etc., etc. Talk about evil, defeatist, ARROGANT thinking! Thanks for listening.
Dear Sailor Barsoom, you leave out the repentance part of Jesus’ teachings. An example is when he told the women caught in adultery “go and sin no more”. The doctrine of the need for repentance is a big reason Christianity is hated by many. Please note that the disciples who lived with, traveled with, etc., Jesus were working on their lives. He confronted them about their sins also. I get tired of the “no repentance” Jesus that people talk about which is really popular but doesn’t fit the Biblical record at all.
Very very true.
“are all women prostitutes?”
I read this on Satoshi’s blog, and I have to say, I traded sex for material well-being as soon as I could! How many drinks did I pay for in college? Christ. Not many. I still don’t. Buy me a gorgeous dress, and you are definitely getting laid. Bring me flowers, and your chances just got better.
I’m married now, and I stay at home full time (3 children) with my very handsome, very hot husband paying all my bills. I fuck him for my income, and also because I really, really, really like to. Not working means I have energy and time and definitely desire. It feels like a natural state of being to me. He makes the living, and I make the living worthwhile. In every sense.
If I had been smarter, I would have capitalized on my willingness to trade sex for money when I was younger. Damn those women’s studies classes! Not only did I leave school with debts to pay, I missed out on a lot of great sex!
Gawd. I have got to make more money. And soon.
You and me both! If I had known at 18 what I knew at 33, I’d be an extremely wealthy woman today. 🙂
It’s also possible in life to be with a man who has little or no money and get a LOT of joy from it. What do you know? There’s other things in the world that are wonderful that aren’t material. This makes me think of my Dad who was a pretty wonderful person and stayed that way after he became disabled from a physical disease. To his credit, he tried to work, but wasn’t able to due to his health. He only went on disability as a last resort. What the disability didn’t change was his goodness and how he gave greatly to his family with NON-material things. An example of something he gave that you couldn’t say “this has exact $ amount of…” was helping my siblings and I pay for our college costs by living at home for free as long as we were in college, working at least a part-time job, etc. Too many good men in this world like him would be “written off” as a potential mate because his only income was from disability. This is really sad but unfortunately true.
‘It’s also possible in life to be with a man who has little or no money and get a LOT of joy from it. What do you know? There’s other things in the world that are wonderful that aren’t material.
Too many good men in this world like him would be “written off” as a potential mate because his only income was from disability. This is really sad but unfortunately true.”
You. are. right.
You are also exceptional. This is the only point.
I’ll answer both Laura and thehumanscortch here.
Yes, Rehab’s good press was in spite of her profession, not because of it. But the very fact that a prostitute could be portrayed favorably suggests that they weren’t seen as some sort of innately and invariably evil creature.
Yes, Jesus extended forgiveness upon repentance. This is an important aspect of the Christian position on sin. What I was talking about, though, was the general take of various religions on prostitution and prostitutes. The general take seems to be: “What these women are doing is not a good thing, but they are not always bad people themselves. And, there are worse things that people do, things that do make them bad people themselves.”
@Laura It’s also possible in life to be with a man who has little or no money and get a LOT of joy from it.
You might get joy from it, but precious little else, and for most women, especially women who want and/or have children, those material things are necessities.
I wonder why you are on a blog that clearly celebrates prostitution as something no woman (or man, for that matter) ought to be ashamed of, trumpeting your position that you are NOT a prostitute. What is the point?
Not only do most women absolutely trade sex for material well-being, that is a GOOD thing. It’s good for women, for men, for marraige, for happiness, for the care of children, for just sheer joy and pleasure in bodily life. This is the big insight in my life. It’s GOOD for women to be prostitutes. We are happier! Everyone is happier and better off when women are allowed to have sex the way they want to. And that usually means Quid Pro Quo, baby.
{applause} 🙂
“Not only do most women absolutely trade sex for material well-being, that is a GOOD thing. It’s good for women, for men, for marraige, for happiness, for the care of children, for just sheer joy and pleasure in bodily life. This is the big insight in my life. It’s GOOD for women to be prostitutes. We are happier! Everyone is happier and better off when women are allowed to have sex the way they want to. And that usually means Quid Pro Quo, baby.”
Then you have to take everything that comes with that as well.
It’s not like there are no merits to Laura’s attitude.
Based on what you’ve said, I think it’s safe for me to assume that all this ‘love’ you feel for your wonderful husband would just dry right up if he lost his job/ability to provide. You certainly wouldn’t be able to relax and enjoy the sex if you’re worrying about your financial security; that’s the exchange.
So that means you’re cool with the fact that once your beauty dries up, or definitely even before, he’s gonna want to have sex with other women, preferably as young as possible.
Because men should have the sex they want too! We’re all happier that way.
Thanks for your kind words. I’ve worked hard on my self-esteem in recovering from past trauma and abuse and also my own self-destruction during the aftermath of all that and I’m to the point that I care the least in my whole life about who thinks my views, etc., are crazy, stupid, etc. I don’t WANT to be part of any majority in certain areas. In some things I do. There have been some great things have come out of my choices to NOT be part of the majority in some ways. People who think this stuff is stupid, etc., can’t argue with the great things that have come out of it. Thanks again for your kind words.
1 point is to show that NOT ALL women want to be prostitutes. This wouldn’t be a fair place at all if women could ONLY say they want to be prostitutes. Just wondering, have you ever learned from anyone who had a completely different view from you? I have, 100’s of times, ESPECIALLY online. Other reasons I’m here: this place gives me the freedom to talk about things that other boards DON’T. Also, I’m what I call a “wild woman” (my name for women who have arrangements with their boyfriends, etc., where both can have sex only friendships) and I saw right away when I started reading on here that the views of these women were needed. This is something I do on boards all the time. If I see an imbalance, I’ll post stuff from the “other side”, etc. An example is I’m on another board which is very heavy with people who support the Democratic Party. 1 man on there (who’s my friend) was getting put down all the time for being for Republicans. Plus there were many articles praising Democrats and downing Republicans. I started posting stuff exposing Democrats also. Speaking of children, I’ve chosen to not have them. My biggest reason was I was an active alcoholic for about 20 years and I wouldn’t bring a child into that as I knew it would be abusive. I valued my addiction the most at that time, unfortunately. But, am also proud I didn’t bring a child into that. I also wasn’t legally married and still am not and I HATE illegitimacy and want nothing to do with it ever. Joy means a ton to me, NOT material things. Before I get accused of living in a tent or something like that, I do have some things. But, I’ve noticed that I’m valuing material things less and less over time. I know 1st hand how your family/friends can be taken from you with no warning so I want to be financially independent as much as possible. I don’t ever want to be the type that just goes from 1 man to another to make a living off of. That isn’t my thing and never will be. I’ve worked non-stop since I was 17 only taking time off for the aftermath of a family tragedy and various health problems. I’ve worked on my skills/gone to college, etc., in order to be able to be on my own at all times. Even if I were with someone who could fully support me, I would still keep up my skills, etc., in case anything happened to him. Like I said above, I know 1st hand how people can be taken from you suddenly. If I didn’t work, I’d do volunteer work full-time. I couldn’t stand just sitting around not volunteering, etc., to be honest. I also couldn’t live with myself doing that as I spent too many years not doing any volunteer work, etc., and won’t ever go back to that. The joy is enough for me, OK? That’s my thing. Even if I won the lottery, I don’t want all that stupid crap that some lottery winners pride themselves on. Also, I saw so many men being used from the time I was a teenager I resolved to never be part of that. So, no, sorry, I don’t see using sex as some way to GET things as good and never will. I do think it’s a wonderful thing to GIVE as a “thank you”, show love and also have fun. For me, though, the fun I’ve had through my arrangment I purposely broke the evil dating game “rules” I saw out there and never insisted they buy me dinner, etc. There were times I bought everything for them or we did Dutch treat. Also some times when we just drank the free ice water at the bar and/or restaurant. A lot of how I did things depended on our financial situations at the time. I did ask for basic courtesy: no lying, return phone calls, things like that. I met a few that practied that, thank God! Please note I’m not ordering anyone to do MY thing. Coming here to show there’s different views doesn’t automatically mean I’m ordering anyone to do what I’m doing. I saw some imbalance on here and noticed there weren’t any “wild women” speaking out so those are 2 reasons I started posting. There’s a few others also. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
Actually, I am totally cool with my husband having sex with younger women. Go for it. They do not threaten me in the least, because I know that it is ONLY sex. What I bring to the table cannot be replicated by some tart in a tight dress.
It’s funny, because I am very open about my husband having a Vegas Pass, which generally pisses other women off and makes other men envious. He says that having the pass is the main reason he’s never used it. Doesn’t mean he WON’T use it in the future, but I am very cool with it.
And as for my beauty fading, well, that won’t be happening any time soon. I work at how I look. I’ve had three kids and still fit into my wedding dress. I weigh six pounds more than I did for our first date 13 years ago, and those six pounds will be coming off, too. I am still a very attractive woman, and I intend to stay that way. Look at Helen Mirren! How hot is she? And she’s 60!
Monagamy in marriage means being married to one person. Fidelity is part of a Puritan cutural heritage that creates untold misery for both men and women. Some people are extremely sexually possessive, and that’s okay. There is nothing wrong with that – it’s just a personality type. But for MOST people, sex is something physically pleasurable – a need that can be met by different people at different times. And that’s okay, too.
So yeah, I guess I do accept the whole package.
Then that’s awesome on all counts; your husband is indeed a lucky man. No man gets up and goes to work every day just to have access to one pair of panties his whole life.
I’m the same way, Andrea; as long as it’s only sex why should I care? The only times mine has ever used it, he talked to me first to be absolutely sure it was OK that particular time, and though he didn’t have to do that I’m pleased he did because it shows he isn’t hiding anything.
I’ve stated on a number of occasions (especially my column of January 13th) that I think one of the most important functions performed by whores is that we allow men sexual variety without the danger of a mistress who may make unreasonable demands and try to break up his marriage.
“I’m the same way, Andrea; as long as it’s only sex why should I care? ”
Unbelievable.
Married American women who don’t care if their husbands have sex with other women.
Oprah would have an aneurysm if she read this blog. 😐
Also. Sure highlights the difference between men and women.
Women want to know, “do you have feelings for her?’
Men want to know, “Did you fuck him?”
Coming extremely late to this party, but I’m gonna be one of those exceptions that tests the rule.
When my wife was dating her BF (we do not have an exclusive marriage), I felt much more threatened by the romantic aspect of that relationship than the sexual. I didn’t care if she banged him till they bled, but talking about being in love with him (as opposed to simply “loving” him; we have many people we love dearly) made me very uncomfortable.
And how long has Oprah been happily married? Oh, that’s right; she hasn’t ever been married. Shows how much she knows about how to treat a man.
Exactly. I’ve always marveled at the fact that the typical man isn’t usually jealous of his wife’s ex, but can’t handle knowing that she ever had one-night stands. Whereas the typical woman, by contrast, doesn’t give a damn about her husband’s bachelor flings but tends to be jealous of his ex. 😐
This, sadly, is why infidelity is so often a one way street. Okay for men, but not okay for women. This is also why women rarely pay for sex: most male prostitutes work for men.
I don’t want to have sex (outside my marriage) without some sort of emotional connection, which is precisely what makes it wrong and why it would threaten my relationship. My heart would have to be involved. So all those smart, funny, sexy grad students my husband brings home are WAY OFF LIMITS, although I find them ever so interesting (see waning fertility post above). And they flirt with me, and it kills me.
My husband, on the other hand, goes away on conference to Brazil and what happens in Brazil stays in Brazil and never comes home to threaten me. So I’m fine with it. I think it’s good for him. A wild romp with a bikini babe is good for a man’s heart. He comes home feeling better than ever. We do NOT discuss particulars, he just knows I’m OK with this.
And yeah, Maggie, I’m with you. What the hell does Oprah know about being married? A good marriage is a joy, but people are still people. And you don’t throw a good marriage away over a little sex on the side.
A little romance on the side is a totally different story.
Dear TheHumanScorch, thanks for your kind words, BUT you need to know there’s been a lot of times in my life I haven’t been exceptional in any way! I self-destructed in some ways for years and hurt my true family/friends in the process. 1 of the things I think I did pretty well on was when I saw others outside of my main relationship! But, in other areas…not much good. I’ll tell you about this when I have more time later. Thanks again for your kind words.
ZZZZING!!
Plus Steadman is gay. Everybody in Chicago knows that. 😐
Women: Who had your heart? It hurts me that you liked it.
Men: Who had your body? It hurts me that you liked it.
[…] slice of wisdom from The Honest Courtesan, an entrepreneur who unveils a formidable mind with one wicked-ass […]
“This, sadly, is why infidelity is so often a one way street. Okay for men, but not okay for women. This is also why women rarely pay for sex: most male prostitutes work for men.”
Men can’t deal with another rooster in the hen house. Period.
“I don’t want to have sex (outside my marriage) without some sort of emotional connection, which is precisely what makes it wrong and why it would threaten my relationship. My heart would have to be involved. So all those smart, funny, sexy grad students my husband brings home are WAY OFF LIMITS, although I find them ever so interesting (see waning fertility post above). And they flirt with me, and it kills me.”
Don’t believe you.
I don’t believe that you don’t want to have sex outside of your marriage without an emotional connection or else these young bucks flirting wouldn’t be ‘killing you’ so. I think needing to have an emotional connection is something that women convince themselves of so they won’t feel slutty, and have to admit that they like new young dick just as much as we like new young pussy.
You clearly want those young boys to bang you so badly until you can’t stand to be in the same room with them. 😐
“I think it’s good for him. A wild romp with a bikini babe is good for a man’s heart. He comes home feeling better than ever. We do NOT discuss particulars, he just knows I’m OK with this.”
This is true. There is absolutely nothing that puts the wind in a man’s sails like new pussy. Absolutely nothing.
“And yeah, Maggie, I’m with you. What the hell does Oprah know about being married? A good marriage is a joy, but people are still people. And you don’t throw a good marriage away over a little sex on the side.”
From a woman’s perspective that is.
“A little romance on the side is a totally different story.”
Ditto on my last comment. So what if another woman has his heart? Why does that hurt you more than his body?
Whaaaaaat? Would you marry every woman you fuck? OK then! Don’t pretend you can’t see the difference! 🙁
No, I do. I was just amazed by all the goil talk is all.
Just the *idea* that my woman is off fucking someone else would make me 17 levels of crazy. 😐
It’s just one of those Mars-Venus things, love. 🙂
This also varies from person to person. When my sweetie and I lived in different cities, I know full well she saw other men, and was fine with that. It was only reasonable. One of them was even a celebrity, of sorts. That is, most of you wouldn’t recognize his name, but if you did, you’d be like, “Oh yeah! He was really good in [redacted]!” If I ever see him again, I’m going to ask him to autograph my copy of [redacted].
We now live within a few miles of each other. I’ll be staying with her during the upcoming days forecast to be in the 80s. Rackin’ frackin’ chillwater system don’t turn it on until well into spring roble roble roble…
You clearly want those young boys to bang you so badly until you can’t stand to be in the same room with them.
Just to clarify, I do NOT want THEM to bang ME – I want to bang THEM. Big difference.
But I can’t do that, because it would hurt my husband in a way that no professional giving blowjobs would ever hurt me.
He knows these men. He works with them, mentors them. He knows I think they are smart and funny and he is quite frankly, a little naive to bring them over quite so often. Or maybe he just trusts me, which is good, because he CAN trust me.
I could, theoretically, just go to a bar and pick up some random guy and fuck him, but then, how do I know he’s funny? How do I know if he’s smart or kind or knows who Satashi Kanazawa is? All of these things are not corollary to attraction, they are an ESSENTIAL part of it.
Not for men, I know. I totally understand. Men like long hair and beautiful skin and great tits and a small waist, and if she is a complete fucking dolt, well, who cares? You’re not gonna discuss global finance, are ya?
It’s different for women. I don’t know why. It just is.
And of course, the neofeminists want desperately for it not to be different, and the fact that it is and always will be drives them absolutely ape.
> Not for men, I know. I totally understand. Men like long hair and beautiful skin and great tits and a small waist, and if she is a complete fucking dolt, well, who cares? You’re not gonna discuss global finance, are ya?
😐
No, it’s not that simple.
He would be threated by me sleeping with someone else I found attractive. He would compare himself. I do NOT compare myself to a hooker giving blowjobs (except maybe technically, but that’s not threatening, that’s enlightening)
Men cheat – it means nothing. Women cheat – it means we really liked that guy! Like, REALLY.
So no cheating for me. Which totally sucks. Grad students are just SOOOOoooo cute.
Do y’all know the President Coolidge joke?
The Pres and his wife were visiting a farm, and when the guide showed them the chicken coop the rooster was drilling a hen.
Mrs C.: “Does it do that more than once a day?”
Guide: “Yep, several times a day.”
Mrs. C.: “Tell that to my husband.”
The Pres.: “Does the rooster always do it with the same hen?”
Guide: “Oh, no – with many different hens.”
The Pres.: “Tell that to my wife.”
Yes, that’s why the tendency of a male animal to ignore females he’s already had is called the Coolidge Effect.
Weird coincidence department: Not five minutes ago I mentioned the Coolidge Effect in a reply to an email from a reader! 😀
The polyamory folks talk about “New Relationship Energy,” or NRE. Of course, old relationships have their own special energy: ORE.
[“Just to clarify, I do NOT want THEM to bang ME – I want to bang THEM. Big difference. ”
And here comes the power dynamic, once again, interpreted through female vision. You don’t want them banging you, you want to bang them.]
YES! YES! THANK YOU! More semantic female games.
The POINT is, you wanna pull your panties down and open your legs to them, no matter how you frame it. That’s what counts from the male vision world.
[But thank you by all means, this is the sort of revelation that should open the eyes of men – most who still think “my gf/wife wouldn’t do that , she’s such a sweetie”. I know it’s BS, I just want all men to realize that. Their sweetheart is but a gremlin in disguise.]
A fact that, to my eternal chagrin, I keep learning. 😐
[I don’t know which is worse : a professional whore who makes $100,000 from 200 men charging $500 each, or a disguised whore who makes $100,000 from 1 man who she marries and divorces, maintaining the illusion of loving him until she finds someone richer, or he can’t meet her price. At least the professional one is honest about the contract, unlike the ‘lawfully wedded wife’.]
Either way you have to pay, so at least the whores tell you the price up front so there’s no surprises later. Plus, they’re not even reMOTEly pretending to love you, you’re a client, so your heart doesn’t have to get involved.
[The whole thing of courtship is basically the process of massaging a woman’s ego and offering gifts while taking no notice of the fact that she’s merely a whore pretending to be be otherwise. Ironic since women complain about ‘not being loved for who they are’ yet never love men for who they are, only their money.]
YES!! YES!! GAWD LOVE YA!! THANK YOU!
You made my entire day with this post.
Everything about dealing with women is PRETENDING.
But when THEY pretend with US it’s ‘feminine wiles.’
No dude, if he’s workin’ the fry station at McDonald’s, has a shot at a hot or quality woman. You’re gonna have to settle for fat girls, low self-esteem girls, or sluts. Good luck with those babies & diseases by the way. Hah! 🙂
For those who may be confused as to whom Scorch is replying: I deleted the post he replied to. There have been far too many hateful, argumentative posts lately and I am NOT going to have my blog turned into a battleground for childish name calling.
I don’t give free reign to neofeminists who tar all men with the same brush, and I’m not going to give free reign to men who want to tar all women with the same brush, either. And if a man wants to vomit out filth about how whoredom is “bad” there are plenty of neofeminist, Christian or trafficking-fanatic sites he can do it on; I won’t stand for my profession being insulted on my own blog.
FOR THE RECORD: A woman who marries for money is the exact moral equivalent of a man who marries for looks. They are both acting out their biological scripts without regard to personality or love, and NEITHER is worse than the other. A man who whines about women not being interested in poor men is the exact equivalent of a woman who whines about guys being uninterested in fat, ugly chicks.
It cuts both ways, boys. 🙁
Don’t you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty? You might not marry a girl just because she’s pretty, but my goodness, doesn’t it help? – Marilyn Monroe (as Lorelei Lee in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, 1953)
Seems like I missed something, Maggie, but nicely said.
Do you have an article here on the ways that the words prostitute and whore are used? Prostitute carries the vestiges of “profession”, while whore comes across as a slur on a woman’s character.
As in, a woman who marries for money (because she wants to be taken care of in order to do a good job raising the children she has with her husband) is often referred to as a “prostitute”.
Which is no insult to me, quite frankly. I’m not sure why it’s supposed to be, especially, as you say, on this particular site.
But whore is used to describe women who actively and agressively desire sex. As if that were the sine qua non of evil female behaviour.
I guess we’re supposed to trade sex for comfort (and be a prostitute), but we damn well better not ENJOY it (whore!).
WTF? I’ll bet you have done a way better job articulating this, Maggie. Can you point me to a column?
“Whore” is a very ancient word; it is recognizable as far back as Sumer and is probably related to the Biblical “harlot”. In comparison “prostitute” is relatvely recent; it derives from the Roman prostibula, an unlicensed whore. Like many Latin words for common things, the term “prostitute” has always carried an “official” air due to the heavy use of the language in medicine, science and law. “Prostitute” therefore carries a legalistic connotation while “whore” is common and therefore subject to broader and less precise usage (compare “vagina” with “cunt”, “copulate” with “fuck”, etc).
Many activist whores like myself have claimed the word for ourselves in recent years, much as homosexuals claimed “queer” and American revolutionaries adopted “Yankee”. I wrote about it way back on July 15th, and about the whole “lustful woman” thing five days later.
So I was too harsh? Sorry. 🙁
Well, not you, but the poster to whom you replied. I rather wish you hadn’t supported him quite so enthusiastically, but at least you didn’t vilify whores as he did and that makes a big difference on this blog. 😉
[Well, not you, but the poster to whom you replied. I rather wish you hadn’t supported him quite so enthusiastically, but at least you didn’t vilify whores as he did and that makes a big difference on this blog.]
I got excited about:
-The fact that another man can see what I saw immediately, and that is that from the *male vision* world, the fact that she wants them is all that matters, and she’s just playing word games about it.
-Her honesty blows the theory that women don’t lust out of the water. It’s simple. She sees some young strong studs, they make her horny, she wants them inside her. Period. Dot. The end. WOMEN AREN’T ANY DIFFERENT THAN MEN. She wants to pull her panties down and open her legs and fuck someone that’s not her husband OUT OF LUST. NO DIFFERENT THAN MEN WITH MISTRESSES.
-Women are not morally superior to men as Oprah keeps trying to assert.
-Of course I’m not vilifying whores…it’s the complaining that the Oprah generation keeps doing that gets to me. It’s the PRETENDING. PRETENDING that women somehow are ACTUALLY looking for love, when the truth is, women trade pussy for attention, cash/gifts, emotional security, or all three.
What I can’t understand is why it’s so hard for women to admit this, and this is why I got excited at another man calling that pretentious intelligence insulting tripe about ‘love’ and ‘fairy tales’ and ‘not being able to find a good man.’ Andrea proves that what I’ve known to be true all along is indeed true. Laura is the exception.
-Lastly, the whole dating process. If you’re not spending any money, women don’t have time for you. How. is that. not prostitution/whoring. You have to spend money or there is no pussy forthcoming(after high school anyway).
Why is this EVER in dispute, all men know this.
Who said women don’t lust? Not I, said the whore. But to say:
…is silly, and you know it. Yes, women ARE different from men, and if you don’t believe they are you might as well start reading your Dworkin now because that’s the logical end result of “social construction of gender” (“women aren’t any different than men.”) I’ve told you REPEATEDLY that women do lust, but that for the vast majority of women lust alone is an insufficient stimulus to actually have sex. By refusing to give into her lust, Andrea demonstrates the validity of my statement and the invalidity of yours. The fact that she lusts isn’t enough to actually convince her to have sex, get it? It’s what I’ve been telling you for…what, four years now?
I agree dating is whoring; remember this post? The second regular daily one I wrote? That doesn’t mean women aren’t looking for love or romance. I’ll give you something you can hang your hat on: If you marry a normal, sane woman and consistently make her feel loved and desired, she will never leave you for someone who has more money or better looks. Not EVER. Excepting the terminally shallow (who, I’m afraid, can be found equally in both sexes) or badly confused (more common among women due to neofeminist brainwashing), women won’t leave their husbands unless they’re unhappy with the marriage. Period. Not for money and not for looks. And if you don’t believe me, you may as well give up on relationships right now and just hire whores because you won’t be paranoid about them.
As for Oprah, she’s an entertainer just like Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh. These people are not gurus, they’re sideshows. No, women are not more spiritually evolved than men, nor vice versa; the very idea is philosophical nonsense that only a fanatic could believe. 🙁
Okay, we’re saying some of the same things; part of my point was *male vision world* and I think, it seems, that you’re missing that part. Validation from another man meant a lot to me.
[Who said women don’t lust? Not I, said the whore.]
I just wanted an admission.
[Yes, women ARE different from men. I’ve told you REPEATEDLY that women do lust, but that for the vast majority of women lust alone is an insufficient stimulus to actually have sex. By refusing to give into her lust, Andrea demonstrates the validity of my statement and the invalidity of yours. The fact that she lusts isn’t enough to actually convince her to have sex, get it? It’s what I’ve been telling you for…what, four years now?]
I do get it, of course Maggie, again, I think we’re approaching the facts from very different perspectives, or maybe I’m just not articulating my points very well, which I tend to do when my bias comes out.
-Somehow it felt very validating to me to hear Andrea admit it. Maybe it’s because my last girlfriend wouldn’t, no matter how much I pressed her.
-Again, my point here is that WOMEN ARE NOT MORALLY BETTER THAN MEN. That’s what I think you’re missing. As a man I get *tired* of being talked about because of my libido when women lust too. It’s not just a male thing.
-*You’re* making that point that she feels something, and that’s not enough to make her act on it.
*I’m* making the point THAT SHE FEELS SOMETHING. And that’s enough for me.
[I agree dating is whoring; remember this post? The very first daily one I wrote? That doesn’t mean women aren’t looking for love or romance.]
Again…it’s the lack of admission from the Oprah crowd that this is the truth that makes my blood boil.
[I’ll give you something you can hang your hat on: If you marry a normal woman and make her feel loved and desired, she will never leave you for someone who has more money or better looks. Not EVER.]
I don’t believe you. But I can’t disprove it.
[Excepting the terminally shallow (who, I’m afraid, can be found equally in both sexes) or badly confused (more common among women due to neofeminist brainwashing),]
This perhaps is the problem; there are a lot of shallow people where I work and live. And I live in Chicago, so these woman have been Oprahized.
[Women won’t leave their husbands unless they’re unhappy with the marriage. Period. Not for money and not for looks.]
Then again…I must know too many shallow people.
I’m proud to be an exception. I’m also not the only 1 (thank you, God!). Even thought a group is small, they still count. Your kind words have meant a lot to me because the truth is I’ve felt very alone at times with how I’ve chosen to do things not only with sex only friendships but with relationships! I DO want to point out once again that it’s possible to have a date and not spend a CENT and still get sex. This is 1 reason I’ll always love personal ads. They’re great for breaking away from the EVIL dating game “rules”. You can say you’re just wanting sex and not play any games and NOT USE men for what you can get materially, etc. They’re not foolproof as I met too many who lied, had no manners, etc. It took me some work to meet a few men who DID have manners, didn’t lie, etc. But, I can’t think of any other way that’s better for women like me who don’t ever want a cent for sex (i.e., no outright prostitution) to go. There were times on my 1 date with men neither of us would spend a cent at the bar and/or restaurant. We would drink the free ice water. That was fine with me. A lot of it depended on our financial situations at the time. There were also times I paid for all their drinks, etc. and also when we did Dutch treat. A few times they insisted on paying for everything and I was OK with that also. I loved breaking the “rules” to be honest and always will! Also, speaking of some women do admit they want sex: YES! I “went wild” for many reasons, but 1 of the biggest was I wanted sex! I was frigid for too many years and wanted to NEVER live that way again once I’d done the recovery work. Actually, even some of my reasons for wildness will always be hated by some. Also loved by some! I’m glad my self-esteem has grown through recovery work to the point where I’m speaking out on all these things the most I ever have.
[I DO want to point out once again that it’s possible to have a date and not spend a CENT and still get sex.
You can say you’re just wanting sex and not play any games and NOT USE men for what you can get materially, etc.
But, I can’t think of any other way that’s better for women like me who don’t ever want a cent for sex (i.e., no outright prostitution) to go.
There were times on my 1 date with men neither of us would spend a cent at the bar and/or restaurant. We would drink the free ice water. That was fine with me.
I loved breaking the “rules” to be honest and always will! Also, speaking of some women do admit they want sex: YES!]
I could just kiss you right now. You give me hope. 🙂
Maggie is right – lust (which I definitely absolutely feel on a regular fucking basis, thank you very much) is insufficient to get me have sex. The fact that these men (and one in particular) is totally charming and funny and witty and smart and always manages to brush up against me in the kitchen means that I could easily reach out and develop a deeper relationship.
That deeper relationship would be REQUIRED in order for me to have sex with this young stud, who is clearly up for it. But that deeper relationship is precisely what makes it WRONG for a married woman. Fucking someone else is just sex. Opening your heart and bonding is infidelity and threatens my primary bond. What if I fell in love with him? That would be a fucking disaster.
I agree that women are not MORALLY superior to men. We just understand how very easy it is to fall in love with a man who has just had his mouth on every part of your body. I don’t think men, in general, run this risk.
Oxytocin. It floods a woman’s body after physical contact – even a warm hug. That makes sex very different experientially for us. We are different.
Yes, we both lust. Yes, I freely and openly admit I WANT to fuck other men. All the time. But I understand the emotional consequences, and I understand that they will NOT apply to the man I fuck. It’s just bad news all around.
And I love my husband. I do not want to replace him. I would never trade him for someone with more money. He is woven so deeply into my heart, than even lust can’t make me betray him. Lust is a powerful force, but not powerful enough.
Now THIS is what I’m talking about. This is excellent.
[Maggie is right – lust (which I definitely absolutely feel on a regular fucking basis, thank you very much)]
That’s what I needed to hear.
[is insufficient to get me have sex.]
This *is* the primary male/female difference, and I get that.
[That deeper relationship would be REQUIRED in order for me to have sex with this young stud, who is clearly up for it. But that deeper relationship is precisely what makes it WRONG for a married woman.]
I understood, same for men.
[Fucking someone else is just sex.]
Not to men it’s not. In terms of, their gfs or wives doing so.
[Opening your heart and bonding is infidelity and threatens my primary bond. What if I fell in love with him? That would be a fucking disaster.]
Again, highlights the male/female differences. Because fucking is infidelity too in Guy World, sorry if that’s news to you.
[I agree that women are not MORALLY superior to men.]
THANK YOU VERY FUCKING MUCH.
[We just understand how very easy it is to fall in love with a man who has just had his mouth on every part of your body. I don’t think men, in general, run this risk.]
No…in general we don’t.
I didn’t know that great sex makes women fall in love…I thought they fell in love with you first and then that’s what made the sex great for them.
You’re basically saying that if a woman surrenders to the physical experience, the emotions can come from it for her. I see.
And again, not as true for men. The BEST sex I had in my life was with my post high school girlfriend, and I HATED her, and I still do. But she was a really good lover.
[Oxytocin. It floods a woman’s body after physical contact – even a warm hug. That makes sex very different experientially for us. We are different.]
That explains the looks I get sometimes after I’ve hugged a female. That explains a lot to me, I didn’t get why they seemed so turned on.
[Yes, we both lust. Yes, I freely and openly admit I WANT to fuck other men.]
Thank you again, that’s all I needed to hear.
[All the time. But I understand the emotional consequences, and I understand that they will NOT apply to the man I fuck. It’s just bad news all around.]
Meaning, again, that if you surrender to that lust, you’re afraid that your heart will follow your body, and then you’ll be in real trouble.
Just please understand that getting your body involved is enough for men to lose their minds.
[And I love my husband. I do not want to replace him. I would never trade him for someone with more money. He is woven so deeply into my heart, than even lust can’t make me betray him. Lust is a powerful force, but not powerful enough.]
Then, again, I must know and have dealt with far too many shallow women if this is indeed the truth.
We’ve talked about the love/sex thing with women before, Scorch. It’s one of the reasons open marriages nearly always fail; while the man is out there shagging away with whoever strikes his fancy the woman tends to stick with one boyfriend and almost inevitably falls in love with him, destroying her marriage. The effect is so strong that women sometimes fall in love with men who abduct and repeatedly rape them. This of course tends to be very damaging to the woman’s psyche once she’s rescued, because she doesn’t understand how she could fall in love with a rapist; she thinks she’s sick or crazy, when actually it’s just her neurochemistry doing exactly what it was designed to do. The fact that things like this can happen to women is EXACTLY what I’m talking about in this column, the way a woman’s mind and emotions can be overwhelmed by her body. It’s this loss of control which the neofeminists fear, reject and blame on “social conditioning” by the imaginary “patriarchy” because the truth, that it’s the nature of femininity and there ain’t a damned thing they can do about it, is for them too horrible to contemplate. 🙁
I think that Scorch and Andrea together highlight a feminine set of three instinctive biological drives that go something like this :
1) [Ooooh look at that stud! He’s …virile… grr] {..possible new alpha male..}
2) [will he *bond* with me] {..giving the potential offspring the needed resources and stable unit..}
3) [Can he defeat/give more than my current alpha] {.. is he a superior partner ..}
1) & 2) work against each other, 3) is a clincher. If those instinctive tests pass the *female* mating urge wins.
They have sex. *Lots of it in a short span time*. “At it like rabbits” like most new couples we know, right?.
This serial oxytocin release induces the new alpha male to bond, becoming the new partner, and creates the offspring of the “better specimen”.
The old alpha (correctly) interprets her even *mating* with a new partner as the end of their bond.
Folks, this is all *instinctive*. I’ve put it into words, maybe not the right ones for you.
We’ve been running this “native command set” for about 12500 generations of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Then we put just 500 generations of social conditioning (“civilisation”) on the top that which says “this pattern is bad/evil/exploitative/unequal/fucked up/slutty/promiscuous/manwhoring”. We’ve had those words for about 10 of those generations, btw.
I.e 200 year old criticism of instinctive behaviour that’s a quarter of a million years old.
No wonder we’re having trouble with gender relationships : we’re hammering a square peg into a *very* round hole. With a Jackhammer.
This is not to say that our socialisation can’t help us fight down those drives.
We just need to cognisance what we’re up against, and learn to cut each other some slack.
Please 🙂
[We’ve talked about the love/sex thing with women before, Scorch.]
Yes, but, perhaps I’m just having selective memory, or perhaps just because the original post I responded to release a bunch of pent up male frustration inside of me.
The impression I always get from *you* is how much of a joke male sexuality is, and how women are totally in control of their sexuality, and how it can be turned on and off with a switch, no problem. Women LAUGH at how easily men are led astray by their natures, while flexing their, to use *your* words, ‘sexual superiority.’
You’ve even talked about your professional conditioning to NOT fall in love with clients, which conveyed to me cuhLEARly your ability to have sex and not fall in love. Women control the pussy. It’s as simple as that, and you’ve said so yourself, and men are no match for it, you’ve said that too.
So women are walking around laughing at how all they have to do is show a little skin, give a little head, or just shake their ass the right way and the man’s wallet will fall open. No danger of emotional connection at. all.
So to hear this:
[It’s one of the reasons open marriages nearly always fail; while the man is out there shagging away with whoever strikes his fancy the woman tends to stick with one boyfriend and almost inevitably falls in love with him, destroying her marriage.]
I always thought that once women started swinging they could leave it where they found it. But what I’m hearing you say now is that there’s a danger for a woman of falling in love with another man if she allows herself to sleep with him.
So I have to ask again….how did you and other professionals, who have come on here BRAGGING about their ability to PRETEND just to soothe the man’s ego, manage to do this? Because you and the other girls, who are excited about MONEY not DICK or LOVE seem to be contradicting the very thing that you’re saying.
[The effect is so strong that women sometimes fall in love with men who abduct and repeatedly rape them. This of course tends to be very damaging to the woman’s psyche once she’s rescued, because she doesn’t understand how she could fall in love with a rapist; she thinks she’s sick or crazy, when actually it’s just her neurochemistry doing exactly what it was designed to do. The fact that things like this can happen to women is EXACTLY what I’m talking about in this column, the way a woman’s mind and emotions can be overwhelmed by her body.]
So again…if you screw her well, or maybe even at all, you’re saying that she can fall in love with you, yes?
But I agree that that is nowhere NEARLY as true for men.
See, the impression you’ve always conveyed to me is that you could take dick or leave it.
So it’s hard for me to understand all of a sudden this danger you’re speaking of, along with Andrea, about how “If I fuck him I might then love him.”
Very contradictory.
It’s not contradictory at all; I think you’re just getting your concepts confused, the way men think when a woman says she wants to make love for a long time it means she wants to be actually screwed until she’s rubbed raw. Guys always equate sex with intercourse; women don’t.
Scorch, I have NEVER said women “laugh” at men; on the contrary, it is YOU who have said that, repeatedly. So please don’t put words in my mouth. Yes, there are some women (the “hustling” stripper-type) who do laugh at men’s lack of sexual control, but other women are afraid of it, find it disgusting or are aroused by it (the rape fantasy is still among the most popular, remember?) And though women can indeed normally turn off sexual response, this doesn’t remove the need for intimacy (porn vs. romance novels, remember?)
See those words you typed there, “professional conditioning”? Please don’t tell me you believe everyone can do the things you’ve learned to do as part of your job. Not every woman can be a professional prostitute; some can’t learn the necessary mental attitudes.
You’ve got a short memory, love. Reread my post on swinging. And you and I discussed exactly this long ago when you had a friend who had a disastrous swinging experience; you insisted it was because the boyfriend had a much bigger cock than the husband did and I told you that had nothing to do with it and went over all the same stuff we’re going over right now.
Good grief, “screwing well” has nothing to do with it! It’s not about frigging performance! It’s pure, unadulterated biochemistry designed to create a pair bond. It has nothing to do with what the woman “likes”, “wants” or “is turned on by” any more than your going to sleep after taking barbiturates has anything to do with whether you’re drowsy or would enjoy a nap. 🙁
[It’s pure, unadulterated biochemistry designed to create a pair bond. It has nothing to do with what the woman “likes”, “wants” or “is turned on by”]
Either that’s the first time you’ve used that combination of words, or that’s the first time it’s sticking in my mind.
I do not remember you ever stating flat out that women have a biochemically based disposition to bond with those that they are physically intimate with. Again, either that’s the first time you’ve said it that way, or it’s the first time it’s registering.
Everything that you say comes off to me, and maybe it’s my own personal bias, that ‘women are in control of sex.’
That’s why this is the first time it’s registering for me, even if you’ve said it before, that
[the way a woman’s mind and emotions can be overwhelmed by her body.] is actually fact.
So it makes no sense to me after listening to you, that all of a sudden you say, there’s something inside women that means that even though they’re in control of the pussy, after they experience sex, they are biochemically wired to mate/bond/fall in love.
And maybe it was Brandy or another poster; SOME woman on here that’s a professional was laughing at men, congratulating herself on her performances in convincing them that she was really into it when she wasn’t.
And yes, *you* have said sexual superiority, or you agreed with me when I said it, one of those two.
Take a look back at that “Wife Swapping” post; I talk about the tendency for women to fall in love with whoever they’re fucking as one of the hazards of swinging.
When I say “sexual superiority” what I mean is that a woman can overwhelm a man sexually just as a man can overwhelm a woman physically. And extrapolating a whore’s ability to use her sexuality to what amateurs can do is like extrapolating a professional wrestler’s ability to all men. Does that make it a bit clearer?
Okay, I just reread the swinging post; sandwiched in there is indeed that statement.
I think I understand what the problem is, it’s because you’re an exception to what you’re saying that I find it harder to receive from you, because you’re talking about something that’s only theoretical for you.
Andrea is much more real to me, because she’s not in professional situation, she’s in a day to day situation.
So maybe it’s just because *you’re* so in control of your sexuality and very clinical and dispassionate in the discussion of the actual act of intercourse that I can’t associate the idea of a woman actually being able to fall in love through sex, because that is, as you’ve said, biochemical and emotional.
That sounds like a very reasonable analysis, Scorch. 🙂
Maggie, would it be fair to say that, as part of your self conditioning, you didn’t see the same client several times in quick succession? Or had a rule of “Not seeing the same client at too close a frequency”?
That would break the “At it like rabbits” bonding phase of the idea I posted above, yes?
That’s a hunch on my part. We’re putting our concious choices/desires to the forefront of our instincts, yes?
Just to clarify, it’s not as if I am incapable of having sex without falling in love. Er, no. It’s rather that the best kind of sex involves the kind where I might fall in love.
Take, for example, the classic Hate Fuck. The guy is an arrogant twat, treats women like disposable dick wrappers and just generally acts like a douchebag. There is really nothing more gratifying than getting this guy to chase you, morphing into his “ideal girlfriend” (whatever that entails), fucking him and then dumping him like a disposable pussy scrubber. And then watch him grovel and humiliate himself. Ha ha! Turn about is way fair play, baby!
Now this is childish, I agree. And I haven’t done it since I was in my first year of college (OK, maybe second, third and fourth years, too – but who’s counting?). It’s bitchy and mean and just really really cunty. It was fun, too.
I am just hoping to illustrate that women CAN and DO have sex without any emotional entanglement. Sex for money, sex for status, sex just for the hell of it. All possible.
But the best kind of sex, for most women, is the kind that is simultaneously emotionally gratifying. And when you bring in an extramarital angle, that sex is dangerous. Your heart is on the line.
Does that clear things up, or just make the waters even more muddy?
[Just to clarify, it’s not as if I am incapable of having sex without falling in love. Er, no. It’s rather that the best kind of sex involves the kind where I might fall in love.
It’s bitchy and mean and just really really cunty. It was fun, too.
I am just hoping to illustrate that women CAN and DO have sex without any emotional entanglement. Sex for money, sex for status, sex just for the hell of it. All possible.
But the best kind of sex, for most women, is the kind that is simultaneously emotionally gratifying. And when you bring in an extramarital angle, that sex is dangerous. Your heart is on the line.
Does that clear things up, or just make the waters even more muddy?]
No. I get it. Loud and clear.
It just validates what I already thought.
There’s women who can have sex more than once with a man and NOT fall in love with him. I’m 1 of those. To be honest, I get tired of NOT hearing about the 1’s like this enough. It’s 1 reason I’ve started speaking out about it as it’s needed BADLY plus people can learn from it also. Once I decided to “go wild” I KNEW from day 1 without being told by ANYONE that there was a risk I could fall for these men. I decided to risk it anyway. I was glad to find out I COULD see them repeatedly for sex only and NOT fall for them. It can be done. I’m very glad I took the chance overall! With some women they AREN’T this way and they know that. They should be heard also. I get so tired of equal time not being given to certain issues. This is 1 of them. It reminds me of the issue of “do I forgive the murderer?” for MVS. The stuff online about this is SO unbalanced with those who are for NOT forgiving are heard the most. I’m tired of it and have fought it for years and never will quit fighting it. Anyway, 1 thing I did to AVOID the chance of falling for the men was to NOT socialize. I would only go on a formal date 1 time with them and that was for us to meet after talking on the phone, etc. I also did that to BREAK the evil dating game “rules” especially that ###*** where you “have to” have a certain amount of dates before you have sex. ###*** that! I’ll always hate that. I would have sex after 1 date and there was only 1 time I didn’t and that was because I didn’t feel well once we got back to my place. There were a few men I didn’t meet in person before they came to my place. I knew then it wasn’t showing the best judgment. I still know that and it’s something I’ve never done again and never will. A big reason I did is we hit it off so well on the phone I thought it would be OK. Anyway, I knew that even though I could see the same men repeatedly that I didn’t want to risk falling for them in the long run so this is why they would only come over for sex and I didn’t do any other dating with them. I learned the hard way also that the danger is in the NON-sex socializing. My fiance saw an ex-girlfriend for sex and she tried to split him and I up in the long run. There ended up being a lot of NON-sex socializing that she initiated. It was a horrible time for all of us. But, as hard as it was, in the end it worked out. He broke off with her and him and I put in a new rule with our arrangement: NO having sex with any ex-girlfriends, etc. I was upset we’d forgotten this to begin with! But, better late than never! 1 great thing I learned through all of it was about forgiveness for this. I got even more knowledge of how it’s possible to forgive something like this and not just make decisions with a hardened heart like at least some women do. I think it’s tragic that so many won’t even forgive a man if he has sex even 1 time with someone else if they don’t have an arrangement. So sad. OK, am going on here, but did want to say there ARE women who can have sex with certain men repeatedly and NOT fall for them. Some women don’t want to do this. That’s fine also. But, from what I’ve seen online and off the voices of those of us who can do this are lacking out there. Thanks for listening.
I’d like to point out that part of the reason that Laura can be an exception is because she and her man have an arrangement. Most women in a serious relationship can’t screw some hot young stud who makes her panties moist because it would hurt terribly the man who means a lot more to her than that hot young stud does. Laura CAN screw the hot young stud, because the man who means more to her than the hot young stud does will grin at her and say, “Go for it, Baby!” So it isn’t fair just to say that Laura is an exception (and I’m talking to you, too, Laura when I say this), because the two of them, Laura and her man alike, are together an exception to the general couple rules.
And for the three people who haven’t figured it out yet, Laura’s man is me. Hi, Sweetie!
I guess it’s the romantic in me, but I really love it when people find each other as y’all have. 🙂
Ah, wuv. Twoo wuv.
S’beautiful. *sniff*
“…That Bwessed Awwangement, That Dweam wivvin a Dweam”
“Inconcievable!”
“You keep usin’ dat word. Ah no theenk it means wha you theenk it means”.
Thanks. I know that I’m a lucky man. She actually points out pretty girls to me on the rare occasions that I don’t see them first.
And she’s brought out the romantic in me. I’ve done the corny-but-sweet things: brought her roses at her job on Valentine’s Day, written lovey-dovey (if not especially good) poetry, called the oldies station and asked them to play “Oh How Happy,” took her to a strip club for her birthday…
OK I lied on that last one; she took me for my birthday.
Funny that – (neo)feminists are fond of claiming that “men oppress women” and chalk rape and sexual abuse to “rape culture/patriarchy” and yet here they are oppressing other women?
Lunatics!