When a man talks dirty to a woman, it’s sexual harassment. When a woman talks dirty to a man, it’s $3.95 a minute. – Anonymous
Dear Men,
Please stop sending us pictures of your penises; most of us are honestly not interested, and the few who are will ask if they really want them. No matter what you may think, or what your friends or feminists or dumb magazine articles or stupid TV shows told you, our sexuality really isn’t just like yours with the genders reversed, and most of us find unsolicited “dick pics” rude, insulting, and either unintentionally hilarious or kind of threatening. If you’re somebody famous and really want to expose yourself (no pun intended) to the possibility of blackmail, please just save us both a lot of trouble and send the money instead of the icky cell-phone photo; it’ll allow you to keep your career intact and spare us both a lot of unwanted media attention.
Love, Women
P.S. – Pictures of your bare chests or flexed arms probably aren’t a good idea either.
I honestly think that the neofeminist propaganda that men and women are psychologically identical except for “social construction of gender” is (from a human relations perspective) probably the most dangerous lie of the past half-century. All reasonable people used to recognize that men and women are different; everybody understood that, though there was some overlap in certain areas, the sexes were in most aspects as unalike as Mars and Venus. We don’t look the same, act the same, sound the same or think the same, and when it comes to sex that goes double. And honestly, why should it be otherwise when it isn’t anywhere else in the animal kingdom? The notion that humans are an exception to every single rule of mammalian biology is religion, not science; it’s no different from the fundamentalist denial of evolution, and based in the same insecure need to believe that we as humans are even more special than we already are.
This subject comes up often in this column, and with good reason; it’s male-female differences which make prostitution not only possible but sociologically necessary, and the denial of those differences which gave rise to and sustains anti-whore legislation. The idea that women are just small men with our reproductive organs on the inside rather than the outside is behind the neofeminist agenda of trying to force women to give up all that makes us women and live and work like castrated men, but a different version of it lurks in the minds of many modern men as well. An awfully large number of guys have bought into this dogma and so truly believe that a woman’s response to male nudity, sexual behavior, dirty talk, etc is going to be EXACTLY THE SAME as a man’s response to female nudity, sexual behavior, etc. Guys who believe this just can’t fathom that a dude posing in his underwear, socks and shoes is NOT equivalent to a woman doing so in panties, hose and pumps, and they can’t comprehend that for most women unexpected and unsolicited male nudity is threatening rather than seductive. They just don’t “get” that even if one ignores the whole pursuer/pursued duality, most women simply aren’t all that visual (not to the extent that most men are, anyhow). But once the doctrine of sexual equivalency has infected a male mind it is nearly impossible to dislodge by any means short of a lobotomy or a major career-destroying scandal, which is why we keep seeing this same ridiculous script being played out in the media over and over and over again.
Last summer, we were subjected to the news that New York Jets football player Brett Favre thought that sending a woman pictures of his cock (on multiple occasions) was a good way to break through her objections to his repeated advances. The woman, Jenn Sterger, made the mistake of trusting others with the pictures and voicemails while soliciting advice on what to do about the repeated offenses, and one of those sold the material to Deadspin for $12,000, thus exposing Sterger to negative publicity she didn’t want any more than Favre did. Then in February, we heard about New York congressman Chris Lee sending bare-chested flexing pictures to all sorts of people he was trying to entice into sex, with predictable results. And now, demonstrating the apparent inability of high-profile New Yorkers to learn from their mistakes, we have yet another entry in the penis picture parade:
[U.S. Representative] Anthony Weiner [a Democrat from New York] insisted he’s staying in office…even as a string of embarrassing new revelations and photos emerged that apparently reveal a hidden, lascivious online life. At first, Weiner vehemently denied that a photo of an underwear-clad erection, sent via Twitter to a 21-year-old woman, had come from him, insisting he’d been hacked. But…blogger Andrew Breitbart and his website Big Government rolled out a series of new pictures Monday, including a shirtless shot that appears to depict Weiner flexing and photographing himself. Breitbart also claimed to have X-rated pictures of Weiner, and other outlets, including Radar Online and ABC News, reported having more damaging information from women Weiner had purportedly communicated with.
“I am deeply ashamed of my terrible actions,” a tearful Weiner told reporters at a remarkable press conference in New York. “I came here to accept the full responsibility for what I’ve done,” he said, apologizing to his wife of one year, Huma Abedin, and reporters and others he lied to about the initial reports. He even said he was sorry to Breitbart, who had commandeered the podium for his own impromptu press event before Weiner spoke. “I’m here to watch myself be vindicated,” said Breitbart, who had faced criticism for his role in the scandal.
“Terrible actions”? Hardly. Stupid, embarrassing actions most definitely (especially after the other two high-profile scandals involving nearly-identical behavior in the same state), but hardly “terrible”. Of course Weiner has already made the obligatory promise to “seek help”, but there is no therapy for poor judgment (which despite what moralists and feminists might claim is his real problem). I have a rather high opinion of my male readers; I think y’all are a pretty superior bunch and would never do anything as colossally clueless as these celebrated New Yorkers keep doing. But just in case there are a couple of you out there who get really, really horny and are trying to figure out how best to win a woman’s attention, please learn from Messrs. Favre, Lee and Weiner; you really need to resist the urge to foist unwanted pictures of your sexual anatomy on women you don’t actually know…or even ones you do know, for that matter.
Couldn’t have said it better myself (except of course for the usual feminist bashing that seems to be one of the cornerstones of this blog). Put your dicks where you like, gentlemen, just as long as it’s not in some woman’s vagina, mouth (or other orifice), who doesn’t want it there, or in a pic to me and/or a gazillion other women who are equally uninterested in your unsolicited junk mail.
Neofeminist bashing. I have nothing against pro-sex feminists who recognize that women are different from men and have the right to live, work and have sex as we choose without our actions and thoughts having to be passed through the High Neofeminist Inquisition and judged by the standards of Dworkin, MacKinnon, Jeffreys et al. As far as I’m concerned, someone who claims that women only have value when they refuse to act like women is not any kind of “feminist”.
I guess I see things in more shades of grey than you do Maggie. My observation is you are black/white either/or in so many of your arguments. “You’re either with us, or your against us…” I just don’t see the world that way… 🙂
Well…yes and no. Did you read my column of June 22nd? This isn’t a matter of us/them; it’s a matter of not applying a label (feminist) to people who have proven time and again they do not deserve it because they have less respect for the judgment and choices of women than any “patriarch” ever did.
That, and there’s no organized hive mind for women, like any other group.
The hive mind, “women must act exactly as we say” mentality is the single thing which most brands neofeminists as oppressive religious fanatics rather than people who seek “equality” as they like to claim.
Indubitably. I doubt that the sheeple have any idea of what “equality” really means, because it’s not possible. Or what it would really look like if it could actually exist in the real world.
But then again, you are talking about a group of people who often scream about how oppressive men are, and how women should have control over their lives and bodies…
but wait we didn’t mean those prostitutes. Or women they want/need abortions. Or birth control. Or wait women that *want* to live a polygamist lifestyle.
Exactly. As the pigs said in Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The neofeminists say they want everyone to be equal, but for women to be more equal than men and for neofeminists to be more equal than other women. Their idea of “equality” and “choice” is for all women to submit to their control.
Well. If I’ve learned anything from Maggie, it’s the timeless truths contained in today’s column. And how asinine Americans are for not wanting comprehensive sex education to be taught on any level. It sure would save a lot of men and women an enormous amount of trouble and disappointment.
On another note, this kind of behavior just reenforces my theory that every man just wants to be a rock star. There’s really no down side to being one, and it gives men everything that they might imagine. The problem is trying to live a rock star life when you’re not in a position to do so.
I would have to imagine that Weiner received his fair share of ribbing & teasing growing up with a last name like that, and maybe he wasn’t that popular with the ladies when he was young….most men need a real ‘revenge of the nerds’ time in their lives if they’re not alpha males, and didn’t get the sea of pussy that they wanted when they were younger.
Also, it’s the ‘wanton woman’ thing. As Maggie knows, men can’t resist it, but what should be clear by now, is that men actually can’t even resist the IDEA of it, hence the pictures.
Maggie,
I’m going to play the devil’s advocate here and say that probably most of what human societies consider to be gender deterministic is actually not.
Example: I do not like to cook, and I don’t like to clean, and I am a woman. Yet that is what I’m supposed to like since I am a woman. And not so long ago, we all “thought” that women were all sexually attracted to men, and vice-versa. But that is not the case either.
So, yes, there are biological differences between men and women, but we really have to be careful about what we consider biological and what actually turns out to be constructed by a particular society.
Actually, none of that matters. If an individual woman chooses to flout every single gender norm, whether biological or cultural, that’s her business and no government has the right to say otherwise. But that’s a far cry from governments forcing individual women to behave a certain way in the pursuit of an unattainable “equality” that can never exist because there are plenty of gender norms which are very much biological.
The best way to determine which is which is to ask the following questions: 1) Is the behavior the same in every single human society, without exception? 2) Does it also appear in nonhuman primates? and 3) Is there a known biological mechanism or evolutionary advantage for the behavior? If the answer to all three questions is “yes”, you can bet the farm it’s based in biology rather than sociology.
“Actually, none of that matters.”
It matters when women are forced, primarily by the State, but also by societal norms, to assume a “gender role” that they are not suited for. That is just as bad as assuming women are just smaller men with the sexual organs on the inside.
But Susan, that’s my exact point; NO ONE should be forced to do anything by the state. Societal norms, on the other hand, are what they are and cannot be engineered; they must change by “winning hearts and minds”, not by force, else they only become more deeply entrenched. The difference is that societal norms, when not backed up by the armed violence we call “government”, can only exert pressure psychologically without themselves violating moral and statutory laws against violent behavior.
I’ve discussed this elsewhere, but while Weiner’s actions are typical of foolish men failing to understand the women they desire, what he did is more reflective of the God complex associated with many politicians. Politicians of all stripes spend months or even years networking, raising money, and courting voters. Upon being successful, they think themselves invincible and assume they can survive anything after the brutal rigors of a campaign. Thus they subconsciously imagine an aura of complete invulnerability around themselves and quite often do self-destructive things. Weiner seemed to have a bright political future before this. He held a safe House seat, looked to be the anointed candidate for Mayor of New York City, and would seem to be a solid pick for statewide office in the future. Now none of that will happen, and Weiner is likely to be pressured out of office by fellow Dems concerned about the effect of the distraction created by his antics on their agenda and own electoral futures. Also, Weiner comes from the destroy one’s enemies school of politics and has a wife whose political mentor taught her to discard those not useful to her from her inner circle. This means once he does leave Congress, he will have a hard time finding employment and no support at home. On the other hand, he can find lucrative work as a porn star without having to adopt a stage name. I wonder if assuming he was above everyone else was ultimately worth it.
I have to disagree with your assertion that these weren’t terrible actions. If you’re simply talking about lying to the public it would be right to label it simply stupid and embarrassing. No rational person believes that politicians are honest and moral, and providing yet another example of that fact is hardly terrible. Likewise, since the tweet of his crotch to all of his twitter followers seems to have been accidental, and everyone who he’s been revealed to have had explicit communications with seems to have been a willing participant, it’s hard to find anything particularly terrible in the actions he was lying about.
What I find terrible is the betrayal of his wife. I’ve heard talking heads this past week say it’s not that big a deal since it wasn’t an actual affair. Chris Matthews actually went so far as to say that it may have been partly her fault because she knew he’d done this kind of thing before they were married. What a load of crap. Anthony Weiner swore an oath to a woman who loved him that he’d remain faithful to her. The fact that she has yet to say a word in his defense is pretty solid evidence that she doesn’t think his conduct falls within the bounds of those vows. Only she knows exactly how she feels about his actions right now, but it’s a pretty safe bet that terrible would probably be putting it mildly.
If flirting with a woman who isn’t one’s wife is “terrible”, then what label do we apply to the 67% of the male population who actually cheat? “Horrific”? Or perhaps “abominable”? To apply strong words like “terrible”, “rape”, “outrageous” and the like to normal (if undesirable) behaviors is merely to water those words down and rob them of any real meaning.
Also (while admitting I know nothing of the details of their sex lives) even if Mrs Weiner hadnt touched Mr. Weiner’s weiner in over a decade this would still be a ‘bad thing’
I’d like to know why cheating is “wrong no matter what”(TM) but withholding sex is not only fine but inelligable as a defense to cheating.
Ofcourse personally I’d refuse to stay married to someone who refuses to have sex, but some people inexplicably stay
Let’s be blunt : if one says to a partner “cheat & we’re done” one also has to accept that you take sole responsibility for satisfying their need for human sexual contact, even if their drive exceeds your own.
If one then cuts off sexual contact, or otherwise disregards the other person’s needs wants or desires, what happens next is a consequence of that choice.
Our sexual drives are, by natural design, compelling forces.
If we were talking about a married man flirting with a woman who wasn’t his wife, I probably wouldn’t have disagreed with you. I have a feeling though that I’m not alone in thinking that your expanding the definition of the word flirt to encompass a man sending nude and semi-nude pictures of himself to at least a half a dozen women with whom he’s had a long running series of intimate conversations is a bit overly broad.
Given that we’re not on the same page on what flirting is, I’m not entirely sure we’d agree about what it means to cheat either. Can we agree that unless you have an open marriage, having intercourse with someone other than your spouse is cheating? It’s hard to say without being there, but I’m pretty sure if I was married and my wife told me that she’d had a drunken fling with a guy she met in a hotel bar on a business trip I’d think it was terrible but it wouldn’t bother me as much as her telling me that for a year she’d been having sexual conversations and sending semi-nude pictures to men she met online. The former would probably fit most people’s definition of cheating, but it could have been just a brief lapse in judgement. The latter would suggest to me that there was something she should have been getting from me that she wasn’t and that she had to go looking for it elsewhere even when she could think through her actions.
I understand the point that overuse of words will water them down, but it’s also the case that if we can’t call a man betraying the trust of his loved ones anything worse that stupid, embarrassing or normal (if undesirable) we’re probably moving too far in the other direction.
But the fact is, Andy, that two-thirds of men DO occasionally cheat. I mean actual sexual intercourse, not dirty talk. And if two-thirds of a group do something, how the hell isn’t that “normal”? Calling any normal behavior, however undesirable or ill-considered or foolish, by the word “terrible” is to render the word totally meaningless.
I think you’re treading a dangerous path accepting that anything a majority of people do is normal and because it’s normal can’t be terrible. I bet you wouldn’t even have to think very hard to come up with a list of examples that invalidate that argument. Which isn’t to say that I think we should throw the word around willy-nilly, but there are times when it will be appropriate and we shouldn’t let the tyranny of the majority dissuade us from using it when it is.
I’m willing to concede that there may have been better words for Weiner to use in this case, but what? He’d been lying to anyone who’d listen (including the President in a personal phone call, according to some reports), he’d been slandering people as liars who had been making factual statements about him, he put his political party in a bind and while he wasn’t actually cheating his wife would be justified in thinking his behavior wasn’t exactly faithful. He needed to say something at that press conference that demonstrated that he understood the gravity of the mistakes he’d made. Maybe he could have chosen a less extreme word than terrible, but then he’d just have somebody else complaining that he still wasn’t accepting the severity of the problem.
Whoa now, Andy, don’t put words in my mouth! The word “normal” isn’t a value judgment (though some people pretend it is); it has a specific meaning, and any behavior which two-thirds of a population indulge in is by definition “normal” even if it’s undesirable. For example, the human tendencies to blindly follow leaders and believe in nonsense without proof are normal, though I wish they weren’t. Words like “terrible” need to be reserved for things which are both very wrong and abnormal, not the commonplace sins of a majority of the population.
As for words he could’ve used…filthy, loathsome, traitorous, sleazy, disgusting, stupid, foolish, asinine and creepy leap immediately to mind.
I hadn’t meant to imply that you were using “normal” as a value judgement. I completely understand that just because something falls outside the norm doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad and vice versa.
You said “Calling any normal behavior, however undesirable or ill-considered or foolish, by the word “terrible” is to render the word totally meaningless.” Even if I agree that statement is true in regards to marital infidelity, it certainly isn’t true regarding any behavior a majority of people might do. You seem to recognize this with your “both very wrong and abnormal” standard. I’m sorry that in my last reply I didn’t make clear when I was responding to one specific overly broad statement.
Dear AndyN, I understand what you’re getting at. I admire your stand, because it’s VERY unpopular with many in society. There’s people who think cheating on your spouse is WRONG and they have the RIGHT to think so and NOT practice that. I think it’s a horrible and sad thing that if people KNOW they won’t be faithful, don’t want to be, etc., they don’t take the time and make the effort to find someone who will be OK with that and/or want what I call an arrangement themselves. Arrangement is my term for couples who have an agreement that it’s OK for them to see others for sex. I’ve had 1 for years, but haven’t acted on it for over 8 years. This is for various reasons. Anyway, why can’t people put some effort into finding what they want and QUIT HURTING OTHERS? This case with Weiner looks like ANOTHER of these cases. God help us. People have the right to practice monogamy and EXPECT it of their spouse if they make a vow to do so (like you pointed out earlier). It’s a horrible thing for them to lie and hide it. I don’t see anything out there about Weiner ordering around anyone else on how to live in the sexual area which is to his credit. If he’s done this, please correct me on this statement! Some people WANT to live sexually conservative lives and I’m sick of them being made fun of, called names like prudes, etc. If the sexually wild people deserve to live their way and not be called names, made fun of, etc., then the NON-sexually wild people deserve that right also. It’s like free speech: it goes both ways and should be for EVERYONE. Thanks again for your brave stand. It’s very “in”, unfortunately, to laugh at stuff like this and say any couple who chooses to be monogamous are prudes, boring and living/setting a standard that’s just not any good/won’t work in the world.
Dear AndyN: 2 examples that invalidate that argument: slavery and putting eugenics into practice. This argument is used at least some of the time to rationalize and make things “not as bad” in order for people to shut up their consciences plus give reasons for things like literally profiting from things that cause hurt to a lot of people (an example of this is the reasons given that profiting off war is OK and good).
When I grew up in the South, flirting with complete strangers was normal. It was play, and everyone knew it. Even though it was play, it gave both people a little high spot for the day. Of course there were unwelcome flirtations, that was normal too. What I’m getting at is that it didn’t cause jealousy.
You’re quite right, Maggie, about feminists trying to pretend that all gender differences are social constructs. The facts to support the opposite argument are well established.
Women have finer eye-hand coordination and girls develop it earlier.
Women pay more attention to details.
Women have better hearing and according to most reports women are better at expressing empathy.
Women’s route to sexual stimulation is different than that of men. As far as I can tell in a marriage, foreplay is what you did 24 hours before she’s ready to make love. And everything is foreplay, from washing the dishes to cleaning the bathrooms.
Women are much more sensitive to pain.
According to testing, women can have as many as 50 orgasms before stopping. Men can manage 3 sometimes in the course of a night. Clearly women are superior here.
Men are more visual than women, even though they pay less attention to details. It’s thought that this is hard wired because we are predators. Men are more aggressive than women. This began long ago in the primate tree, on the same side as aggressive monkeys and aggressive chimps. Socialization, of course, does make a difference, but just as it’s wrong to try to make girls boys as it is equally wrong to make boys girls. Boys and girls who swap genders is fine; I’m talkin about forcing a kid, for whatever reason you have.
Apart from the orgasm count, I don’t see anything here that looks like evidence against social construction. “Socially constructed” does not mean “consciously chosen” (and so conversely it doesn’t mean one can consciously choose otherwise) and it does not mean “easily changed.” Given the tremendous variation in gender roles and gender stereotypes between cultures, it seems clear that important aspects of gender are heavily influenced by culture. It also seems worth pointing out that people have a decent number of stereotypical views about the differences between men and women that are just wrong. Neither of these mean that men and women are identical apart from culture, of course, but the whole notion of talking about what people are like apart from culture is barely coherent; culture is a huge part of what all actual men and women are.
To be fair, quite a number of women say they find pictures of naked – or near naked – men a turn-on. I don’t.
For me an attractive man is at his sexiest in a suit. I don’t know why; maybe I’ve watched “Secretary” too many times.
Even most women who find pictures of naked men sexy don’t want to be confronted with those pictures by surprise, though; they want to seek the pictures out for themselves, and they want to choose which men they look at. I daresay even the lustiest, most visual lady would be a bit put off by suddenly being sent nude photos without warning by a man she doesn’t even know.
And BTB, I agree with you about suits. 😉
1 of the things I’ve HATED about having sex only friendships and using the personal ads to meet people is how at least a few men would send me just pictures of their privates. I’ve always hated that. BUT, if they sent pictures including their FACES I thought that was great! And it was OK for them to send a full-length naked picture because of WHERE my ads WERE. It was expected! But, if I hadn’t placed ANY ads and got naked pictures from a man I never met, etc., I would find it very upsetting and 1 reason is the PRESUMPTUOUSNESS of it! I wouldn’t send any man I didn’t know a naked picture of me or even 1 of just my private parts either. 1 reason for this is to me it’s just in plain bad taste on EITHER end. It’s too close in the neighborhood for me to a flasher. Another reason I didn’t want the partly naked pictures was the crudity of it. This is 1 thing I still hate about the sex related personal ads: constant crudity, thinking all women LIKE having crude words and swear words said to them during sex and on a date, etc. I hate this and am thankful it NEVER happened with any of my sex only friends. I’m very thankful when I met Sailor Barsoom that he wasn’t this type! He wasn’t swearing constantly, being crude, etc. He was the OPPOSITE. This is 1 of the reasons I wanted a relationship with him. I wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with any man who constantly swears, uses crude words and thinks that’s “strong”, etc. and thinks NOT using this language is “weak” and that means the man isn’t “masculine” enough. I wanted to say all this to confirm that at least some women don’t like getting naked pictures from men they’ve never met and also don’t like getting them of just the man’s private parts even if they have a sex related personal ad. Thanks for listening.
She likes my clean language? Fuckin’ A! 😉
But seriously, Laura: within an hour of meeting you I was handing you a porn story about an Elf. I’m glad you think I’m a wunnerful guy and all, but really.
Yeah um I still don’t understand why men get married at all.
There is a converse problem that is little mentioned; because it isn’t politically correct to acknowledge that men get riled up by sexy images in a way and to a degree that women don’t, many women are genuinely startled (and feel threatened) when strangers approach them when they are all dressed-to-kill, failing to understand the strength and range of the non-verbal message they are sending.
I do not – EVER – want to go back to the old days of the “Look how she was dressed; she was asking for it” rape defense. But for ‘sexual harassment’ charges, I think that it should be acknowledged that some outfits broadcast the message “I am a female mammal in a condition of heat”, and that that constitutes the beginning of the conversation, rather than some poor slobs “Hey, Baby!”. Which isn’t to say that “Buzz off” should not be taken as the termination of a conversation.
C.S.P., haven’t you heard of ‘Slutwalks?’ There is no more ‘how I was dressed.” It doesn’t matter.
Dear thehumanscorch, why should it have EVER mattered what ANY rape victim was wearing at the time she was attacked? Women who wear burkas all the time have been raped also. I hate these ASS-umptions a ton (She was raped? She must have been wearing a miniskirt then!) because they’re also made about at least some murder victims. 1 of my favorites with those: Your child got murdered because she was homeless at the time of her murder. Unfortunately, this is a real-life example I’ve run into. The ###*** put on rape victims is no better.
I was being sarcastic Laura. It of course does not matter what rape victims were wearing. Some men break in through windows while women are sleeping, not even being sure who the woman is.
The point often that men are trying to make, I think, is the torment that they feel at watching a woman with provocative dress is extreme. But that still is no excuse for rape, and as you say, women with burkas get raped, so, there’s no reasonable argument to be made from the ‘she wanted it based on how she was dressed’ camp.
Dear thehumanscorch, I figured you were being sarcastic and am glad you confirmed that! It’s so horrible that so many STILL question what the women were wearing before they got raped. There’s also still many who say kids who are molested by REAL perverts (not the 1’s who get arrested for being 18 and having 16 year old girlfriends) acted “seductive” before the molestations. God help us.
Not to mention the grandmothers who are in their pajamas under the covers. I suppose they’re also dressed provocatively.
Mmmm, hot granny! Woo-hoo, what a GILF!!
OK, just kidding. When I went to that convention this past weekend, I saw women dressed like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordblueberry/5828830616/in/set-72157626951747852
and this:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2119253904396&set=a.2119169462285.2126070.1337240941&type=1&l=20445b272c&theater
and this, and this, and this:
http://gamnark.animekurabu.org/phpgallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=akon22&id=IMG_3999
http://gamnark.animekurabu.org/phpgallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=akon22&id=IMG_4001
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=205060556204822&set=a.205058476205030.57911.100001026376914&type=1&theater
And they were all as safe as anybody could be in a big city.
I think you’re right. Our legal system has turned down a very dangerous path in the past few decades with its pretense that words are equal to deeds; the idea that a peer can “harass” another peer by simply striking up a conversation (divorced from actual acts) is odious in the extreme because it reduces women to powerless, fragile children who aren’t able to relate as equals to men. If a woman wants to be considered an equal to men she had best be able to stand up to them without the ham-fisted intervention of “authorities”, and if she isn’t able to act like an equal it’s wrong to treat her as one.
I’ve had more passes made at me than some women have had conversations; on rare occasions they didn’t stop with words and actually presumed to touch me uninvited. But in nine cases out of ten a withering glance was enough to repel even the most determined boarder, and NEVER did I feel so threatened (short of the few cases which progressed to actual rape) that I felt the need to call in some father-figure to ruin some poor schmuck’s life. And any woman who can’t handle herself as the equal (in personality strength, not physical) of men needs to get married and stay home where she can feel safe.
Amen, Maggie. The real issue here, as far as I can tell, is What The Fuck Is Wrong With Your Delete Key? So you got a cock shot. Big deal. Delete. A rauncy text? Delete. A poorly worded invitation? Delete, delete, delete.
Men solicit sex, typically using images. Alert the media! Women solicit material gifts, typically by using words. Ever send a picture of a cute pair of shoes to your boyfriend with a note telling him where to find them? Ever suggest a great new restaurant (that you invariably expect HIM to pay for)? Ever work into conversation how much you would love to have XXX but simply can’t afford it?
If you answered yes to any of the above, then you are the exact moral equivalent of a cock shot sending man. And it’s highly unlikey the recipient of your request will run swooning for smelling salts and a lawyer when confronted with your request. He’ll either do it (yay for cute shoes!), or he’ll locate a special little button on his phone and deal with it:
Delete.
Well, Andrea, if people used any sense when it came to all matters sexual, prostitution wouldn’t be a crime.
I do agree with what you’re saying and there are women who go too far with their complaints BUT I also think that in a work setting (ESPECIALLY when in a work environment – obviously non-sex work related!) and in cases where men are in positions of power, the dynamics are very different than dealing with unsolicited attention by a strangers in a different, neutral setting. The politics and power issues involved when dealing with that kind of unsolicited attention in a work environment make it a lot trickier for a woman (or man) to respond to.
But I agree that some cock shot sent over the internet by stranger is pretty easy to deal with…. Delete. Next!
I absolutely think women need to have a way to report bosses who try to use their power to extort sexual favors; what I have a problem with are women who level such accusations against peers who have absolutely no power over them, sometimes as a means of removing them as competition.
Any superior who coerces an ‘inferior’ into providing sexual gratification truly is guilty of sexual harrassment.
What I dislike about the law is that although verbal sexual harrassment must be persistent to qualify as such, I have problems with this. I was telling an erotic joke, nothing even remotely raunchy, to three other guys in a private room. A woman came in, overheard it, and threatened to sue us for sexual harassment. She didn’t even say, “Please don’t tell jokes like that around me.” That would be polite and still get the result she wanted. And it particularly bothered me that we were in a private room with the door shut.
What’s next? Minute by minute recording of everything guys say?
“Some outfits broadcast the message “I am a female mammal in a condition of heat….”
I’m sorry, I have to disagree.
First I have to say: Yuk.
And second I think that it is kind of ridiculous to expect women to know exactly what outfits may be interpreted as “broadcasting” that message you’re claiming they’re intentionally broadcasting. Is there a specific “rule” to follow? Do all men always agree on exactly what those outfits are and aren’t? Or is the responsibility on women for them to determine where the line between an outfit that broadcasts “being in the condition of heat” (yuk) and those that broadcasts (presumably) *not* “being in a condition of heat” – according to what every individual male she may cross paths with that day may view as such?
But fine, let’s say she is broadcasting this or any message , is it not possible the message might be meant for someone specific…some else? Or does it automatically mean every man should assume this message is intended for any and all men – even without any other reason to believe that any attention or message at all is intended for themselves personally?
The vast majority of men are quite capable of realizing that whatever a woman may be wearing (and regardless of what they assume she may be “broadcasting”), they still have to, and in fact it is their responsibility to use their judgement in assessing whether the woman is signaling to them in other ways and confirming she is actually interested in receiving attention from them. Outfits alone do not qualify as confirmation or justification for any man to assume a woman is broadcasting the message that she is “in the condition of heat” or even that any message is intended for him personally or anyone in general, first-come-first-served kind of thing.
Men are intelligent enough to do this and those who are not are the problem…not the outfits or the messages believed to be broadcast.
Wanker, please. Unclutch your pearls.
Pretending that there is no difference between an attractive, well-groomed lady and a woman with five pounds of periwinkle blue eyeshadow and a shirt so low-cut she’s risking a nipple-slip at the office is pandering. As someone who has yet to leave home looking like the latter, I don’t appreciate this lowest-denominator crap. And I am a HOOKER, so let’s leave our sexual repression and you-don’t-understand comments at the door, thanks.
Time and a place. Don’t scream your advertisements if you aren’t in sales. When in doubt, put something else on. There’s feminine, and then there’s desperate.
Jesus, I wish people would grow the hell up. Personal responsibility is a wonderful thing. If everything about you screams “desperate for some cock” just throw your shingle out and embrace the fun that is my email inbox. And if she doesn’t have a shingle out, assume she’s a normal human being who expects a drink first. Christ. This is not difficult.
“Men are intelligent enough to do this and those who are not are the problem…not the outfits or the messages believed to be broadcast.”
Ok, explain to me why I should be the one who has to be in control when a young “lady” is wearing stretch pants with the words “for rent” on he behind. And no, I’m not kidding. I’ve seen it. And, yes, she was attracting all kinds of male attention and huffy that they wouldn’t leave her be.
*sigh*
The Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized the concept of non-verbal “speech” (specifically with reference to stripping, BTW). All I’m asking is that people who are signaling non-verbally be held accountable for their speech. A white man wearing the stars-and-bars of the Confederate battle flag in a majority-black neighborhood should be generally understood to be wearing a sign saying “I am a jerk, lets fight”, and all interactions viewed with that in mind. A woman wearing an outfit that leaves nothing to the imagination has no grounds for complaint so long as she is not touched or threatened….and being loomed at shouldn’t count. And a woman who goes to work dressed that way should be the one accused of sexual harassment, damnit. As a male I am hard-wired to react to the visual. I CAN refrain from acting on it, because I am not simply my basal ganglia. But it raises the general level of tension in a world that is pretty (and petty) irritating as it is.
Did you ever read the Heinlein story “Coventry”? It takes place in his future history after a Christian theocracy has ruled the United States for half a century, and when that’s overthrown the new government realizes that the old Constitution and legal structure was what allowed the theocracy to happen so they scrap it all and start from scratch with one law: you can’t hurt anybody. You can do whatever else you want, but if you physically touch somebody else or anything that belongs to him without permission you’re hauled up before a judge and forced to pay a fine and apologize. A huge area in the West named “Coventry” is fenced off, and there are NO guards or officials or anything else there; if you refuse to pay the penalty for a crime or the judge otherwise decides you’re hopeless you are put inside it and left to your own devices…along with all the other murderers, thieves, rapists and hooligans. The protagonist of the story ends up there because he responds to a verbal provocation with actions.
Sounds like a great idea to me. As long as people only respond to provocation with provocation rather than actions, the government needs to STAY OUT OF IT. Period. If a woman dresses like an underwear model in public and a guy responds by whistling or making a pass, neither has done anything wrong and the government has no business acting. But if the man assaults the woman (no matter what she wears) or the woman slaps the man for whistling, the one who struck first should end up before a judge.
Heinlein wrote some great stories. But they are just that: stories. They are no more a guide to how to build a society than Tarzan of the Apes (for all that I loves me some Lord Greystoke) is a guide to survival in the rain forest.
Dear Sailor B, actually you shared that story with me and 2 others at the same time. It was also a full day after we met. You weren’t crude about sharing your story either and I loved that! None of us there got into any crude talk while it was being read either which I loved. We made a lot of jokes including some sexy innuendoes, but I enjoyed that! It never got to a level that would have bothered me OR our mutual woman friend who was there also. Yes, you swear sometimes, but when you do there’s good cause. If it were constant…GGGGRRRR!
It was the next day? Wait, was this before or after you flashed me?
I do try to avoid cussing in front of my parents, sisters, nieces and nephews, in front of children or strangers. It’s a little different if I’m some place I know that a little is accepted (like my “Fuckin’ A!” bit of ha ha above), but I feel that carpet F-bombing is unnecessary most if not all of the time.
Dear Sailor B, yes, it was the next day (actually the next NIGHT). It was many hours after I flashed you. I’ll never forget that nightgown with the tears in it because of the not on purpose flashing (wink)! The truth is even before I wore that nightgown I was attracted to you greatly. Yes, 1 of the reasons was you weren’t swearing constantly. I also work to do the not swearing thing in public, especially around kids. A few times I’ve been very angry over something and messed that up. But, I resolved to keep the goal of never doing it after I messed up and HOPE no one did hear me! 1 reason I use the “###***” is to let people fill in their OWN blanks. They can put in whatever swear word they want that way and it lets me not constantly use swear words also.
That’s right; you had just driven 500 miles and weren’t about to stay up any later than you had to. Well, I’ll never forget that night, though I seem to have compressed the time frame.
I’d known {middle sister} for five years already, and she she was still to get by another couple of years before flashing me. Well, it’s what happens when you both aren’t wearing a bra and you let yourself get clumsy. Not that I’m complaining, with either of you.
Dear Sailor B, I know you’d never complain about braless babes getting clumsy…smile. I’ll never forget that night either. Yes, “middle sister” is a babe.
The Weiner thing distressed me. His real crime is idiocy and a severe display of bad judgement – but this seems to be clouded in the moral issues of what’s considered acceptable sexual behavior.
I’m a conservative politically – but it really bothers me to see Conservatives look at this from a moral perspective. We should condemn Weiner for being an idiot with poor judgement – not because he did something especially “taboo” morally.
I’m reminded here that Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one child with one of his slaves. I hold a very high opinion of Jefferson still – even though what he did in his time was an order of magnitude worse than what Weiner has done.
The difference is – Thomas Jefferson did such a good job hiding his indiscretions – that it took modern DNA technology to uncover them.
Not so with Weiner.
Weiner’s wife knew whar he was doing. He did it before their marriage and has said he told her of it. Huma is a disciple of Hillary Clinton and a typical example of the women I’ve known in Washington who marry or date male politicians for convenience and status. It’s part of the culture in Washington for men to cheat and wives to ignore. Everyone looks the other way–till it becomes a poliical liabiity, at which point former friends become rabid hyenas. I would condemn Weiner much more for his character-assassinating attempts at a coverup–primarily accusing Andrew Breitbart of identity theft, libel, and slander–than for his aberrant sexual behavior, which is nothing but an odd subset of the norm in Washington.
What’s “terrible” about this is Weiner may end up resigning over this, but not over any of the violent crimes against humanity he has supported as a politician, voting for the Iraq war, for example. Or taxes.
P.S. I apologise for the unsolicited posting of my face. 8)
LOL! 😀
You posted this just in time, I was about to send u a pic .
😉
Back when I was working, and had a website up with contact details, I used to occasionally get the penis pics. Once in a while they were accompanied with e-mails that said something like “Now you see what I’ve got you won’t want to charge me.”
Dream on. I’ve seen a LOT of those things. Never once, upon seeing the penis photo, did I get all wet and moan “Oh, I’ve just got to have that, free of charge!”
It’s just not the dick, guys.
Question- Is seeing a professional cheating? I never considered it so, that any of my clients were cheating.
Because, Comixchik, Americans don’t believe in comprehensive sex education, or else they’d know the basics of male & female sexuality.
Cheating is anything that’s done without your partner’s knowledge. Also, your using a woman’s standard I’m assuming, by figuring that since it was just a job, and just a physical connection, and not a romantic or emotional one, that it’s not cheating.
A man would never apply that standard if he found out his wife was going somewhere else for sex.
Well…let me rephrase that… SOME men. I’ve found out to my surprise that some men are more understanding than I, and some men actually *would* forgive their wives for a one night stand. Or even an ongoing affair.
“Because, Comixchik, Americans don’t believe in comprehensive sex education, or else they’d know the basics of male & female sexuality.”
Given the quality of public education, and the degree to which talking about differences between men and women is considered a thought crime, what on earth makes you think that what would pass as Sex Ed would be any goddamned help?
*shudder*
IF (and that is one HUGE qualifier) Sex Ed were taught seriously, without regard to whose ox was gored, THEN, yes, it would help. As matters stand? I can only see it making things worse.
When I was working I never once opened a picture that a guy sent me, and if they asked later I would tell them so an explain that what they looked like made no difference to me (I’d also skip any description for the same reason).
As I described in an earlier column, I consider visiting a pro to be “managed cheating“.
Ah, the power of being a woman. The unslavery to the visual.
“What they looked like made no difference to me.”
Absolutely impossible and unthinkable for a man.
Ah the power of being a man; y’all can fuck without caring whether she’ll call or what she thinks about you later, and marry based on looks and personality without having to give a damn about whether she’s a good provider, which despite feminist protests to the contrary is absolutely impossible and unthinkable for a woman.
As my Maman used to say, we all have our cross to bear.
Any man who marries a woman based on her looks is a fool. Personality…I give some leeway on that one. But for me, at least, part of her personality is in her ability to make my life better than it would be without her. Just some semantic garbage, but yeah, sometimes being a dude is AWESOME. Too bad I’m not a dude with money. That’s the best.
Equally, a woman who marries a man for looks or money is just asking for it. Dot-coms go bust, and we’ll all be ugly and wrinkled one day, but an asshole will still be an asshole.
/my thoughts on yaoi
Dear Emily, THANK YOU! I get a kick (being sarcastic) about these people who say: I’ll only marry a man/woman who doesn’t have 1 extra pound, who could be a model, has perfect skin and hair, etc., etc. Do THEY think THEY won’t age? What the ?? As far as I know, no one is immune from aging. I think they have a lot of arrogance to demand these things in appearance in order to have a marriage/relationship when THEY WILL ALSO age like their partner! How would THEY like it if the same standard was applied to them? I’ve yet to hear 1 of these people ever mention the standard should be the same for them.
Yaoi? I know what it is (I’m an otaku), but I’m missing the connection.
This should explain everything.
The short(er) version: There’s a magical land on the internet called Fandom Wank. It is a complex culture, with its own hive vagina and a highly specialized lingo which can mostly be boiled down to “less serious; more funny”.
When someone is going off on a tl;dr tangent, or oversharing personal philosophy that is probably not near as profound as they think, an expected response is, “Fascinating. And what are your thoughts on yaoi?”
We know that everyone perpetuates tl;dr and/or teh unfunny eventually, thus in the true spirit of mocking stupidity, we don’t exclude ourselves. (See phrase: we eat our own.)
Ergo. I said something navel-gazey that most likely wasn’t as profound as I like to think, so I closed the post by mocking myself for taking my opinions so seriously.
Don’t ask about his wife being a horse. You really don’t want to know.
Got it. Thanks. Also, equine question avoided.
CSP Schofield said,
IF (and that is one HUGE qualifier) Sex Ed were taught seriously, without regard to whose ox was gored, THEN, yes, it would help. As matters stand? I can only see it making things worse.
Does anyone else remember the Python film where John Cleese is the sexual education teacher giving a, er, full on demonstration of technique with his wife and is constantly having to call the students to order because they’re SO BORED! with it all?
Meant to comment yesterday but was distracted. As usual, these are my opinions only, take it or leave it.
Penis pics are a form of modern day flashing with low risk of getting caught. I don’t believe (generally speaking) that the men who send dick pics really care if the woman wants to see them or not. It’s a thrill, it’s being naughty. These guys aren’t sending dick pics to women they want a meaningful relationship with. Some may be proud of their junk and want to show it off, thinking they will get a reaction from the other side of the computer screen (whether that reaction is positive or negative, it’s still a reaction).
Now I hate to sound callous or cynical, but a man cheating on his wife with me is not a problem I’m going to take on. I’m not the one who has an emotional responsibility for a wife. His being married is his problem and I’m not one to judge his reasons as to why he is seeking companionship elsewhere. I’ve asked why, out of curiosity, and have heard answers from straight up “I like variety” to “She has been sick with cancer and hasn’t been able to give me affection for over a year”. They could be lying to me or themselves or they could be telling the truth. I don’t know nor do I care. The one thing that IS consistent is that they all love their wives and do not want a divorce due so a simple perceived lack of physical affection at home.
In my mind, finding a girlfriend to woo and romance is cheating. A simple physical fling without emotional attachments, not so much. Course I have been on both sides of the fence and have seen both perspectives. Many have not.
So, after listening to Brandy & Maggie, I’m even more against marriage for men. Seems like the wrong form to take for a relationship, because ultimately as a man it’s either not what you want, or she’s got you financially & legally by the balls, but can still withhold her favors as your wife.
Scorch, your problem isn’t with marriage, which in its traditional form made perfect sense for both parties and was great for kids. What’s you’re against is this perverted monstrosity marriage has been turned into.
Quite probably true.
Switching back to my cynical Brandy persona 🙂
Men should stop marrying the good little girls that their mothers would approve of and seek out wanton wild nympho women. This may not cure a desire for variety with different women but the wife would be more open to a practical discussion of say a swinging lifestyle, which would negate “cheating”.
Brandy….there are no wild nympho women.
Beg to differ! I am all of those things, but WITH my husband. He makes the living, I make the living worth while. In every respect. To me, that’s the deal. He does NOT pay all our bills so I can sit at home on my ass, get fat, be a bitch and have a headache just before bed every night. .
And it’s not that difficult. Quite the opposite, in fact. It’s a joy.
His parents hate me with a passion. I am totally not the good boring girl they had in mind. Ha ha.
Fuck them. Thinking of the inlaws always reminds me of a little school yard chant (I went to some pretty interesting schools):
I’m sorry you don’t like me
I’m sorry that you think I suck
But most of all I’m sorry
That I just don’t give a fuck!
I totally agree. If I thought being a housewife was harder than being a whore, I wouldn’t have retired! I enjoy keeping myself good-looking for my man, cooking the food he likes, rubbing his back, making him treats and providing him with all the nookie he wants. 🙂
That’s my point…you are NOT all those things. You are not wild, having sex with all the men you like…you do that FOR YOUR HUSBAND. That is NOT WILD.
Scorch, what Brandy means are women who enjoy sex and aren’t loaded down with hangups. There are plenty of women like that, but most of them are over 30 and a substantial minority of them are in sex-related fields (including nursing).
Then they don’t qualify as “wild nympho women.” That’s not what that phrase means to me at all.
You wouldn’t want a real nymphomaniac, unless being with a woman whom you could never satisfy and who was always cuckolding you and giving you diseases is your idea of fun. 🙁
Well, I just took her phrase too seriously and too literally.
What you guys mean is “sexually uninhibited.” Which is definitely cool if you have a wife like that, and there’s an expectation of monogamy.
That’s not what comes to my mind when I hear the phrase “wild nympho women,” because as you have taught me so well, the ‘wanton woman’ is a myth. And most on this board that have husbands are doing that to please him & keep him happy.
If you, Brandy, Andrea, and all your friends were single, and doing all the things that you do for your husbands for multiple men at a time, unprofessionally, with different men every week, then you’d qualify to actually be called “wild nympho women.”
But why would you want that? Or am I misunderstanding you?
I think you’re just misunderstanding me.
I wasn’t saying that I *wanted* that kind of woman…I was saying that that’s the image that comes to my mind when I hear the phrase “wild nympho woman,” and that’s not actually what Brandy meant.
She meant sexually uninhibited, no hang ups, free to enjoy sex, please your man, maybe even try new things….that’s not the same, in my mind, as a “wild nympho woman.”
So that’s what I meant when I said that you all don’t qualify, because what YOU mean is able & willing to get your freak on with your husbands, which is indeed awesome, but that’s a far cry from being a “wild nympho woman,” and I certainly wasn’t saying that being a nymphomaniac is better or preferable to what you and Brandy are talking about.
I volunteer to be the one to say it.
You forgot that you’re on a blog surrounded by hookers. As in, HOOKERS. S’ok, dude, it happens all the time. Gorbachev actually stated once that men who cheated felt awash with guilt about it and women didn’t (and, I repeat – surrounded by HOOKERS, who fuck cheating men for a living).
My personal pet theory is that you menfolk occasionally remember that we’re hookers, but mostly you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t say things that make me go “O.o… dude, HOOKERS.”
So sometimes you fellows realize that, present company suddenly realized, you’ve said something that doesn’t exactly make a lot of sense and/or you know we know you’re talking a bunch of nonsense. You can either compound nonsense by following it with bullshit, and if I’m in a good mood I’ll let it pass, or you can sack up and admit you said something you fervently hope no one ever quotes around hookers again.
Guess which wins our respect.
Dear thehumanscorch, with what you’re describing I met the criteria (except for being a literal nyphomaniac) for some years. I had dates most weekends back then. The last time I saw anyone besides my fiance it was only 1 man and that was on purpose. I haven’t seen anyone but my fiance for over 8 years now and that’s been on purpose for at least a few reasons. But, when I 1st started…things were a lot busier! To be honest, 1 of the reasons I came here was because the column about how there’s no “wanton women” made me furious. I reacted to that like I would have a column saying that “there’s no murderers who ever have remorse”. Yes, I was unprofessional and that was ON PURPOSE. I’m in the minority in that view on here, but that’s another reason I came here: to show that people can be against prostitution for themselves but want it decriminalized. There’s a lot of reasons I was a “wild woman” for years. I know when I 1st started posting here, you had some doubts about had I done these things? I’m hoping you still don’t feel that way, but if you do, you can ask Sailor Barsoom (my fiance) for confirmation. He was there for some of it, literally! He won’t mind me saying this as we gave each other permission a long time ago to talk about my past adventures on here. We still have our arrangement and 1 thing I love about it is there’s no pressure on either of us to act on it. I wouldn’t put up with an arrangement that said you HAVE to be with others besides me. Overall, I have a lot of good memories from those years. I’ll never say it was ALL good. I met my share of liars, believe me! But, 1 thing I’m proud of is I kept going in order to find a few men to see on a REGULAR basis. The 1st date I had was so bad that it would have been easy for me to just give up then. But, I refused to and kept going! Anyway, I learned a ton from doing all this and it raised my self-esteem greatly which was VERY needed!
This board is run amok with women like that. ALL my friends are like that. Can you imagine ME hanging out with women who have sexual hangups? ACK! And Maggies right on what I meant, she tends to be more tactful than I 🙂
@Emily
First of all, my sack is just fine, thank you.
Second of all, MAGGIE IS THE ONE WHO TOLD ME THAT THE ‘WANTON WOMAN’ IS A *MYTH.* A ROLE THAT WOMEN PLAY BECAUSE MEN LIKE IT, NOT BECAUSE THEIR LOINS ACTUALLY BURN WITH LUST ON THE LEVEL THAT A MAN’S DOES.
Third of all, I’ve said nothing to apologize for. I was just trying to clarify terms, because words mean different things to different people.
Maggie and Brandy et al have said REPEATEDLY THAT IT’S A *JOB.* That there is no emotional attachment, there’s only financial attachment.
Really? Coz I could check that for you. Just sayin.
Never mind women’s loins, I doubt that men’s loins burn with the lust men claim that loins burn with. And I’ve seen a lot of loins. Further, I think you’ve completely extrapolated things from the myth of the wanton which were never implied. Oh yes, dude, I burn with lust. Talk to Brandy when I haven’t had sex in four days and am obsessively downloading Supernatural for pictures of men without shirts/with guns. I will nevertheless have to choke back a giggle at the next FBSM customer who wants me to tell him how I only do massages because I LOVE THE COCK. That? That’s not lust-burning loins, that’s just stupid.
Third, you can make mistakes. Just don’t make excuses. I’m not nearly dumb enough to buy the “Oh well, BUT YOU SEE…” argument, and sometimes neither am I in the mood to let it pass unmolested. Seriously, you’re surrounded by hookers and claimed there are no wild nympho women. Dude, HOOKERS. Ferreals? Passing it off as something you only said for the lols would have been a better option.
If it makes you feel any better, people have said stupider things on this blog full of hookers.
I repeat. I have said nothing to apologize for, perhaps I completely misunderstood all the stuff that Maggie was teaching me about the myth of the wanton woman.
Hookers don’t hook because they love sex. Hookers hook because they love money and financial independence.
Now you’re trying to tell me that’s wrong.
Exactly! Well done.
Hookers who are not inherently fond of sex will not be hookers for long. Ditto for hookers who are not inherently fond of men.
Maggie never said there was no such thing as wanton women who adored sex and rather liked men. (Ha! Cite your sources, sir.) The myth of the wanton addresses men who create a fantasy that we are only in the sex business because OMG WE LOVE COCK and will do anything to get our hands on it all the time. It’s about men deluding themselves that sex work is merely an excuse we horny, horny women employ to get our hands on the crotch of every random man of any description who answers our ad.
The two are not mutually exclusive, you see.
It also addresses men who fantasize that women actually have a GREATER sex drive than men, and that “lustful” women are the ones who drag poor, innocent men into committing rape, hiring harlots, cheating on their wives, etc. You know, like the Good Christian or Muslim piously stands before the judge or congregation holding his hat or turban and saying, “I would never have done it if that Jezebel (accompanied by pointing finger) hadn’t enticed me into it!!!” 😐
Fine.
NON-hooker women can be learned from and be wild sexually also. Any website that doesn’t have people on both sides of an issue isn’t complete and doesn’t give the full pictures to anyone wanting to learn fully about that issue. Thanks for listening.
Dear thehumanscorch, a big reason I was wild is because I was very sexually frustrated and wanted experience! It wasn’t to put on some act. It wasn’t to literally please men and hearing that makes me want to keep speaking out. That isn’t the only thing that motivates the women like me. I was frigid a lot of years before becoming wild due to verbal sexual abuse. Once I started healing, that big sex drive that I’d repressed for years came alive. I wanted a relationship PLUS sex only friends. I was very blessed in that the 1st man I met who treated me well (there was 1 before Sailor Barsoom that didn’t) and reciprocated, etc., wanted this also and had for years. We didn’t formalize our arrangement right off. We were “friends with benefits” for a while before that. I still had a lot of problems to fix during these years (due to past abuse and trauma), and self-destructed in some ways (especially with alcohol, which I’ve now been free of for nearly 12 years), but I started making progress right away thanks to the wonderful psychologist I saw during those years. For me it was NEVER a “job”. The thought of it being a job was something I never wanted and still don’t. The only exception would be if it was my very last resort in order to have money to eat, etc. Anyway, yes, there’s some women who have big sex drives and I’ve met some others like me also (thank God!) who want to practice their own form of “free love”. When I say free I mean it literally. That was another reason I’ve done things the way I have: to break these ###*** evil dating game rules and never be 1 of these women who use men to get free meals, drinks, etc. I find the mentality of “is your sex drive exactly like a man’s” to be a distraction. I had a lot of recovery work to do during those years so why did it matter if my sex drive was at some “set level”? How about just going out and doing what you want instead of analyzing it to death? Yes, I know the women like me are rare, but we still count! Also want to say that if women do choose to charge (literally) for sex that’s their choice and I’ve not once stopped any from doing that or said to anyone “don’t do that”, etc. I know they deserve the right to do that like I deserve the right not to. Thanks for listening.
@scorch
I will apologize. I apologize for putting the image of wild wanton nympho women into your brain as I tend to speak in the extreme sometimes. Picture a bar graph with a virginal bride who has lived under a rock her whole life on one extreme and the image you have of wild wanton nympho women at the opposite extreme. The person a man marries will lie somewhere in the middle, perhaps move your indicator a little more towards the WWNW side when looking for a life partner even though Mommy would prefer you lean the opposite way.
Just as a trauma nurse couldn’t do her job if she couldn’t stand the sight of blood, a hooker can’t do her job if she doesn’t enjoy sex to some extent. There may not be emotional bonding but I do like my clients and have become friends with more than just a few. The ones I don’t like I don’t see again, no matter the financial gain (name another job where you can tell assholes to piss off and never darken your doorstep again without getting into trouble with a boss).
My loins may not burn like a mans does but they burn nevertheless. There are times when I truly am a WWNW but I couldn’t be (and I don’t think others are unless they have a mental condition) 100% of the time.
Peace?
“The whore, on the other hand, has absolutely no interest in attracting a mate; for her, sex with customers is a business, a means of support.
This is not to say we are immune to love or have no desire for marriage; far from it, and many a working girl is either married or attached, or else eventually leaves The Life for a husband (as I did).
What I am saying is that for a whore the extension of a general offer of sex has nothing to do with either lust or husband-hunting; it is merely the advertisement of a service for hire.
I’m not sure why so many people are confused about this; nobody thinks that an accountant loves to prepare tax forms, or that a roofer has ulterior motives for advertising his services.
On the other hand, nobody insists that it is impossible for a chef to enjoy cooking, nor that an actress must be “damaged” for playing different roles on screen rather than just being herself. Men and women both are so psychologically invested in their stereotypes about sex in general and prostitution in particular that the vast majority of people simply cannot recognize that a whore is no different from any other professional:
Though she may or may not enjoy her work, her primary motivation for doing it is to earn a living.
Therefore, she is the only safe and moral outlet for the married man’s desire for extramarital sex; the cost is specific, she has no interest in him outside the business relationship, and her discretion can be relied upon. She therefore poses no financial, emotional or social threat to the wife.
Like any other businessperson, the whore must advertise in order to attract the attention of potential customers and to motivate them to choose her above her competitors. One common method of doing this is to appeal to male fantasy, and since the “wanton woman” is such a universal theme it is one many whores (and strippers, singers, actresses, etc) choose to appeal to.
Many males may be tempted to view this as a “lie”, but seen dispassionately it is no different from one company’s claim that its products are of higher quality or more “fun” than those of the competition. Once a man learns to think critically, he can shed the preconceptions on which advertisers attempt to capitalize and judge any product, whether it be beer or automobiles or sexual services, on its actual merits rather than on hype.”
Gee, I can’t imagine where I got my ideas from that it’s just a business, not motivated by lust, but motivated by a desire for financial gain, with women playing the wanton role because men like it, but not really feeling animal lust like men do. Nobody thinks that an accountant loves to prepare tax forms.
Don’t ignore the part which begins “On the other hand, nobody insists that it is impossible for a chef to enjoy cooking”.
Ice cream in the hand, ice cream in the hand, ice cream in the hand…
But that was not the focus of either column. Both times you went out of your way to say that it’s just a business, there’s no desire for mating, the wanton is just a role.
You did *not* go out of your way to make it clear and say
“Whores of course like/love sex, and we want it too.”
But fine whatever, Emily chews my ass because I can’t read between the lines and somehow come to the proper conclusions after reading you for months talk about how men and women are different and IT’S JUST A JOB IT’S JUST A JOB IT’S JUST A JOB I’M A PROFESSIONAL I’M A PROFESSIONAL and IT’S ABOUT THE MONEY IT’S ABOUT THE MONEY IT’S ABOUT THE MONEY and MEN ARE PROJECTING MEN ARE PROJECTING MEN ARE PROJECTING.
You spend way more verbal time talking about the above than you EVER have talking about your enjoyment of sex. Period.
But whatever, fine. Now I know that I’m an asshole if I think that hookers like sex and I’m an idiot if I think they don’t.
*Sigh* Thanks for the rerun. Any business is motivated by financial gain. An accountant may not “love” to prepare tax forms but he at least has to like it somewhat. He doesn’t do tax forms 24/7 and a whore does not act wanton 24/7. However, whore’s do have sex outside of business. What is our motivation for that? Or do you think we live in a nunnery when we are off the clock?
Again, as I said, clearly I came to the wrong conclusions after reading Maggie’s statements.
So, as Emily said, I’m a FUCKING IDIOT because like with most female stuff, there’s subtleties and shades and nuances and emotions and I’M A FUCKING IDIOT because I can’t figure out WHEN you’re motivated by lust and WHEN you’re motivated by money and WHEN I’m being stupid for thinking you actually LIKE sex and WHEN I’m supposed to know that you’re just playing a role to get paid and WHEN you want it outside of work and WHEN you don’t get emotionally attached but ooops oh yeah you CAN get emotionally attached and fall in love with and marry a client and it’s MEN that are projecting but DON’T THINK that means that we DON’T like to fuck but we don’t like to fuck for the same reasons as YOU but DON’T think that means that we DON’T burn with lust but DON’T think that means that you can blame US for leading you astray but DON’T think that means that we don’t like it but DON’T think that means that it’s not a business because YOU’RE AN IDIOT if you think I’d just like to HANG OUT with you for free but DON’T think that means that we don’t have sex outside of business and THIS IS WHY YOU MEN ARE FUCKING IDIOTS because you can’t FIGURE OUT WHAT we mean and WHEN we mean it because of COURSE a BOARD FULL OF HOOKERS are wild and wanton nympho women and YOU’RE A FUCKING ASSHOLE for thinking that WE LOVE COCK and can’t get enough.
Breathe, love, breathe. The blog is about the business of whoredom and not the personal lives of such – so yea.. I can see where you see it’s all business.
I really wish somebody would hurry up and invent the “feelie” machine from Brave New World, so that part of sex education could be to force girls to experience for just one hour what guys feel during sexual arousal and vice-versa. Until then, all we have are each others’ words.
I think most women, even most whores, have no clue about what male arousal is like for men, so they go around saying stuff like “women lust as much as men” and don’t realize it’s bullshit. In the past every woman knew that male lust made men crazy because A) they lived on farms and saw what rutty male animals act like, and B) they hadn’t been subjected to over a century of legal/social propaganda that there was only one standard for lust, and C) they hadn’t been subjected to decades of “social construction of gender” and “men and women are the same” nonsense.
When guys try to explain to modern women how bad male lust gets, modern women (even most whores) think they’re exaggerating; I’ve heard dozens of girls make that claim, I’ve seen it on hooker boards and I’ve even seen it from commenters on this board. Women know what their own lust feels like and just can’t fathom that guys have it ten times as bad, despite the fact that women don’t rape, women don’t hire whores and women only cheat about 1/5 as often as men do (and by Aphrodite, I will delete any stupid, Pollyannaish response from ANYBODY which tells me that there are exceptions. Nobody here is 6 years old and we all know every rule has exceptions). This is partly due to ignorance, partly due to skepticism (guys do have a tendency to lie to get in girls’ pants) and partly due to a learned lack of respect (thanks to feminism) for guys’ powers of self-control; women reason that if it were really that bad no man could control himself.
I was very lucky in that I was intimately acquainted for many years with a man whom I respected in every way, was totally truthful with me all the time and wasn’t trying to get in my pants. And when I told him as a teenager that I thought “blueballs” was bullshit and that rape had nothing to do with lust, he gave me one of the sternest lectures of my 14-year-old life. Later, I saw close-up what lust could do to the judgment and behavior of the best, most intelligent man I ever knew, and I’ll never forget it. But most women aren’t so lucky to have a Jeff in their life, and so believe that the ravening hunger of the male can be compared to the “gee, I’d really like some dinner now” of the female.
Scorch, as I’ve told you many times, women DO like sex, but the desire for it alone isn’t ever sufficient reason to have it. Whores do indeed have sex for money, not because they feel lust, but Emily and Brandy are trying to say that those who don’t like their job don’t last long, just like musicians who don’t actually like to play music won’t last long in the music business. Dig?
Again.
Fine.
Scorch, all I’m saying is that it isn’t cut and dried, black and white. Women DO lust, but it isn’t as overwhelming as males experience and our wiring encourages us to channel it while yours encourages you to give in to it. Even if we really DID have equal lust (which we don’t), you have a reptile voice whispering “spread the seed, spread the seed” while we have one whispering “guard the egg, guard the egg”. Put another way: Men’s sexual cars have high-performance engines which run hot and poor brakes, while women’s sexual cars can be revved up pretty high but won’t run at that speed for long, and have excellent brakes.
Saying “women never lust” is a lie. Saying “women lust as much or more than men” is ignorant. Saying “women never enjoy sex” is dumb, and saying “women have sex for the same reasons as men do” is a fantasy.
Ice cream in the hand, ice cream in the hand, ice cream in the hand…
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=/&gl=US#/watch?v=dZtLRpuhAaw
I’ve been spreading this link around as often as possible (whenever i find a “women get as horny as men!”, argument on the internet.) Ive met some horny women *heh heh* and ive met some out and out slutty (for the fun of it) women *yes, im bragging about being the gateway cock, what of it?*, but the highest libido women on the planet have never (IME) come close to showing as much interest in sex or doing as much crazy shit in oursuit of sex as an “average” young man. Or, to put it bluntly, men created sex tourism for pump and dumps, women enjoy sex tourism for the BFE (the most popular female sex tourism spots have male whores who give a full dinner-walk on the beach-sex in moonlight experience, the most popular male sex tourism sites have women lined up against walls.) Women look for charmers or hyper-phallic brutes, men don’t care if their women are even literate or especially pulchritudinous (despite the nigh-universal appreciation of the hourglass figure.)
Or, tl;dr
I know guys who’d fuck roseanne barr, I don’t know any women who’d fuck john goodman. And john goodman is a funny, charming and approachable millionaire.
I would have used ed o’neill and katey segal for the comparison, but Peggy Bundy was MILF-hot and Al Bundy was considered doable by far more women than I expected.
Is that the right link?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZtLRpuhAaw
Sorry. That other link is for the mobile version of youtube.
I understand you, Emily, that people need to grow up. I never call a woman a slut, it’s not even in my mental vocabulary. As far as I’m concerned there are no sluts. People can be called promiscuous; I don’t regard that as an insult.
When I’m working I’m a whore. When I’m not working I am a woman like other women. When I’m working, I have sex for money. When I am not working, I have sex for pleasure.
Tl;dr. Skimmed the capslocks for the highlights.
Dude. Deep breath.
Passive-aggressive has never been my style. Around these parts I have thus far called other commenters: bitch, dick, asshat, posh little tit, obnoxious little twat, wanker, princess, pedantic prick, told someone to eat a bag of dicks, and probably a few more. I did not (and would not) call you a fucking idiot or an asshole, for two reasons.
They’re really sort of lame as insults. I can come up with better.
I don’t think you are a fucking idiot or an asshole.
Point being, I am of the firm opinion that you said a silly thing, but not that you, personally, are the problem. If I did think you were an idiot, you’d know it for a fact because I would tell you.
We good there? Moving on.
The two opposing statements that “whores are only after money” and “whores are only after cock” are hyperbolic extremes. Both contain a kernel of truth taken wildly out of proportion until they are just ridiculous. Let’s borrow the chef thing.
“Chefs don’t like their job, they just suffer through it because it’s business and the light bill has to be paid. That’s all. Just a cold professional need for money. It means nothing, and it never will.”
“Chefs love cooking. They love everything about cooking. They love it so much, in fact, they go hunting around to find someone to cook for because they can’t STAND going an hour without a saucepot in their hands. It’s a NEED.”
Both statements are ridiculous. The best chefs love food and cooking, and it’s impossible to be a good chef without some inherent attraction to working with food. They also want to make a living, thus they have parlayed something they enjoy and are good at into a career.
Whores are no different.
Going into tl;dr myself, so we’ll pause for refreshments.
Calling myself an idiot here but what is tl;dr? I’m thinking it’s on of those things where I will smack myself in the forehead saying DUH!
TL;DR
Too Long; Didn’t Read
I’ve felt that way a few times, and I can read some long-ass posts.
I wonder, can we reach consensus on the theory that;
a) testosterone seems to control the urge to sexualised behaviour in both genetic genders
b) males have an unbroken, non periodic source of it, which doesnt wax-and-wane so much as builds up continually
c) females have an intermittent, periodic source that works in conjunction with her ovulation, fertility and menstrual cycle? ::this is the bit I lack personal experience of, I admit::
Arent we kind of saying that the typical male is going to experience a more consitent urge to *seek a potential mate* assuming he has no other outlet, than a typical female?
I also think that we have, separate to this, individual response levels, around our gender-specific average, to the “bonding” hormone oxytocin (the “cuddles and chocolate” receptor pathway) and it is *both* these factors that predispose us to our individual (as humans) sexual behaviour?
LMAO you guys are killing me here. This discussion in and of itself demonstrates the vast differences between men and women. Love and miss you all, gotta visit Momma’s house more often 🙂
I agree with that; we’ve missed you around here lately!
A female friend of mine suggested swapping pictures of my penis for her boobs, and I declined that. Perhaps I’m too cautious (other end of the spectrum to the clowns reported in the column). It’s just that the internet is full of high-quality naked pictures of super beautiful women. There seems to not be a huge benefit in taking the risk.
Back in an earlier millennium, I experienced this backwards. In a pic exchange with a woman, I was the one to send a full portrait, and was disappointed to get only closeups in return. She seemed confused that I’d rather see her face.
I once said this in a forum that had a lot of sexy talk.
Got pounced on, by women who *like* to see (and get) dick pics.
Huh. I guess there *are* some.
I don’t think there are many, so men who send ’em will get few positive responses.
On the other hand — perhaps, maybe — those men might be offering the “deal killer” immediately. Sometimes that’s more efficient than waiting, and hemming and hawing.
Perhaps.
Maybe.
AMEN, on Tom Leykis’ radio show one dude called in with how shocked he was to see dudes on Craigslist in the “men seeking women” section posting pictures of their dicks. Seriously, thats how gay pickups work, not normal heterosexual relationships. Besides the dreadful dick picks which I have never seen, I did see one place where all these dudes were posting shirtless, muscle flexing pictures of themselves in a misguided attempt to pick up women and to me they looked like something one would expect to see on the cover of a gay magazine.