It’s always weird to me to watch amateur women freak out whenever some famous man is caught using his power, wealth, or influence to obtain the kind of sex he craves, despite the fact that men in such positions always, virtually without exception, use their power, wealth, or influence that way. Yet somehow, amateurs seem committed to the irrational and dubious belief that some individual man they find attractive or admirable will be an exception to the rule. The problem is that women who have never done sex work really never stop being naive about male sexuality. Sex work teaches you that male politicians, teachers, doctors, scientists, engineers, clergymen, writers, artists, sportsmen, musicians, accountants, etc, etc, are all rather uncivilized where sex is concerned. But there’s little point in our trying to explain it to them, because most amateur women absolutely refuse to admit that whoring might actually grant some desirable skills that it’s difficult or impossible to gain otherwise. Suggest that other female-dominated professions such as nursing or teaching might grant unique perspective, and they’re good with that view. But say it about dirty-bad-icky harlotry, and they won’t have it, because it would interfere with their ability to look down on us regardless of their own education or situation. And so they’ll keep failing to be on guard around men with power, and keep being surprised when they abuse that power in the way powerful men always do.
Visit my bookstore
This Month
Old Posts
Call me
Become a Blog Patron
If you want to donate but don't want a recurring charge, you can send any amount you like via PayPal to my email address (see below). Be sure to include a note so I can thank you!Contact Maggie
Boring but necessary legal stuff
I strongly agree with your main argument, Maggie, but I am not sure what you mean by us men (since your list includes most of us) being rather uncivilized where sex is concerned. What do you mean by “uncivilized”? If “civilized” means being nice, polite, helpful, clean, fine, but – except for a few men considered “hot” – it will rarely if ever get us laid.
Which means that if we do wish to get laid regularly, we must use whatever we have at our disposal – money, social position, power, time, mental effort – to improve our chances. I would even go as far as saying that the main motivating factor for males to become rich and powerful is simply their wish for frequent (and, possibly, multi-partnered) sex. Otherwise we could get by on a minimally paid job and spend our time playing computer games or engaging in other hobbies.
No, I don’t mean acting like a boy scout; I mean maintaining the standards society pretends to have about male sexuality. As in, no cheating, no manipulation or force, and “commitment”.
I missed Maggie’s reply, now more than a year ago. But I’ll put in my two bits as a response. I think that the problem lies in the use of the term “uncivilized”, which can be seen as a negative judgment, and many (most?) of us don’t like negative judgments being made of us. Now, it turns out that “uncivilized”, as defined by the examples given, covers a number of behaviours that are not equivalent in creating moral outrage, at least in my view. Yes, many of us males will “cheat”, i.e. engage in sex with other people than our partners without their knowledge, but this behaviour is so widespread, and so old, that I would not call it uncivilized. It is part of almost any civilization I know of. No manipulation or force – well, I try not to engage in such, but what human being, male or female, is entirely free of such? As for commitment, or rather a lack of it, I think it is a harsh claim indeed that most males are incapable of commitment. Many of us are strongly committed to our families, our friends, our professions. Visiting an escort is hardly evidence of a lack of commitment. In fact, it often reinforces the bonds of matrimony, as Maggie has often pointed out.
“Sex work teaches you that male politicians, teachers, doctors, scientists, engineers, clergymen, writers, artists, sportsmen, musicians, accountants, etc, etc, are all rather uncivilized where sex is concerned.”
Is it that we are “uncivilized” or that we merely recognize our need for emotional, intellectual, sexual connection and basic release and will pursue these needs given the opportunity and seeking the opportunity?
I just don’t see the connection between “uncivilized” and these needs or wants, or better, that this term is appropriate since civilized is not mutually exclusive of such drives.
There’s been an undertone in the sexual services community as it has been growing more accepted, a good thing no doubt in and of itself. This tone is one of men being pathological or broken without these services and those providing them have that same false clout which teachers and people in the realm of social work and counseling would bandy about in superiority.
It is funny and tragic how the Puritanical bent of this Society even enters the justification of sex work.
My argument is that male as well as female sexuality is civilized and civilization for so many reasons too long for this point. Those providing for each other should be seen as good people providing a need no different than food or fellowship or trade for all of these are also considered part of being civilized.
Sex and its emotional connection which can be and is present even in transient encounters is as normal a need as food and should eventually be seen this way.
Good way to entirely miss my point, dude.
Completely unintentional. Will take some time to reread and reconsider. Though that I got it, perhaps I was completely off base. Appreciate your work.