There is all of the difference in the world between paying and being paid. – Herman Melville
Since the third day of my blog the topic of marriage as a form of whoredom has been a popular one, both in my columns and in the commentary. Not that this is anything new to us; the observation has been made many times in history, as a perusal of my Quotes page will demonstrate. One year ago today I wrote it this way:
The exact same arrangement (man contributes support, woman contributes sex and/or companionship) is completely legal in the long-term form we call marriage but illegal in the temporary form we call prostitution. Now, don’t start screaming that marriage is different because it involves love; where is it written that a couple have to love each other in order to make marriage legal? Throughout most of human history love had absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Love certainly makes a marriage more pleasant…but any reader who asserts that nobody ever gets married for the bare-bones reasons mentioned above is hopelessly naive and might as well stop reading right now, because it isn’t going to get any better for him.
Or as I expressed it in a recent comment, “love is the icing, not the cake”. Marriage is first and foremost a socioeconomic relationship, and the modern insistence that love is the be-all and end-all of marriage is one of the primary reasons for the skyrocketing divorce rate, because couples who share no bond other than the biochemical one we call “romantic love” have no reason to stay together when time and adversity weakens or destroys it. True love is a much more complex emotional bond, but it takes time to develop and rarely does so between people who are not already bound together by other, more mundane bonds such as blood or mutual dependence. Just because a man is another man’s friend doesn’t mean he can’t also be his doctor or business partner, and if he thinks their friendship means he can neglect the economic relationship he will find that neither lasts very long. Similarly, a woman who thinks that “love” means she can neglect her defining contribution to the marriage, sex, may strain both interactions (the love-relationship and the socioeconomic partnership) to the breaking point.
Obviously, not all sex in a marriage is directly transactional; indeed, at the beginning of the relationship I daresay very little is. The distinction is important, and came up in a recent correspondence with one of my regular readers. He wrote,
For the past week or two I’ve been wrestling with the issues raised in the recent whores/marriage, speaking prostitute/speaking in Repressive Christian Archetype threads. I was not scandalized or offended by the concept of sex in marriage as a transaction on a continuum of sexual transactions which includes prostitution (wife = whore) But even though I’m trying to learn to speak Prostitute despite it not being my native tongue, I felt a sense of nagging unease with the argument if we leave it at that point. Among the things that scratched at my mind:
1. If all sex is on a transactional continuum, why does sex within my marriage feel qualitatively different to me than sex prior to my marriage?
2. If all sex is on a transactional continuum, why do so many whores in their own blogging or writing make a sharp distinction between work sex and relationship sex?
I replied,
One has to be aware of the transaction, but one can’t be too concrete about the concept of gain…When a woman gives sex to a man, she doesn’t necessarily get cash or goods in return; she may get favors, or status in her group, or spiritual fulfillment, or a feeling of having done the right thing. And if she loves the man to whom she gives the sex, she may get pleasure from the simple act of giving, just as all normal people enjoy giving gifts to those we love. Love cannot be discounted; it’s a powerful and transformative emotion, and it can totally change the sexual experience because it changes “where your head is”, to express it colloquially. Sex for anyone, male or female, amateur or professional, is absolutely different with someone we love than someone we don’t.
Another important thing to consider is that for married women, there are two kinds of sex; we might call them “love sex” and “duty sex”…many women will use different terms for it (one girl I knew differentiated them as “making love” and “screwing”) or even deny it completely, but all mature women know about it. “Love sex” is what you have when you’re in the mood and want to be with that special person, whereas “duty sex” is what you give him when you’re not really in the mood but he is. A sexually realized woman can perform the two so her husband can’t tell the difference, but women who are out of touch with themselves as women (that’s not meant as an insult to them, it happens to a lot of career women because they try too hard to be “neuter” at work and can’t let that go when they get home) usually can’t; a successful GFE escort is one who can make the two indistinguishable with almost anybody (this is one of my greatest skills as a whore). The physical actions are the same, but “duty sex” is purely transactional whereas in “love sex” she gets a direct return, namely the feelings of affection and bonding with her mate (purely physical sexual pleasure may be present or absent in either form).
Every woman used to understand that this is the way the world is, but many modern women have been brainwashed into thinking that transactional sex is automatically bad, and that the only valid reason for sex is to please oneself, which is simultaneously selfish and self-destructive because it will invariably leave a man feeling unsatisfied since his wife isn’t providing to him as she should. This of course drives him to look elsewhere and creates relationship-destroying tension between the two. So when we talk about the housewife as whore, this doesn’t mean that the sex is always transactional; the best sex between married people, and indeed most of it in the first year or so of the relationship, isn’t transactional at all. The whoring starts the very first time one’s husband starts to make overtures when one is absolutely, positively not in the mood and one gives it to him anyway because it’s the right thing to do in return for the financial, emotional and social support he provides, or because one loves him and wants to offer herself as a gift.
Of course, in a really good relationship it’s even more complicated than that; I still enjoy the transactional sex I give my husband precisely because I do love him, and as I said in the first paragraph of my response that giving is a joy in and of itself. Years ago my husband and I went to Yosemite National Park, and stayed in one of the tent cabins; these are tents erected over permanent frameworks, so though they offer visual privacy one can practically hear the people in the next tent breathing. I knew that in the morning we were getting up early to hike up Half Dome, so I wanted a good night’s sleep to prepare for a long and exhausting day. But we had been together less than a year, and my husband loves Yosemite so he was feeling very amorous. I was absolutely not in the mood; I can’t relax without privacy, and I wanted to go to sleep, but I knew he would sleep better after sex so I gave it to him, willingly and in good heart. And I still treasure the memory of that night ten years later, not despite the fact that it was only for him but because of it. Loving one’s husband and being his whore are not mutually exclusive; in the best marriages they are so tightly intertwined that the individual strands are indistinguishable.
Less an argument than some random thoughts inspired by Maggie’s post:
1) Sex is all very well, but it’s a silly business at best. Companionship, partnership, friendship…. all are much more important. My Lady and I have been married for more than a quarter of a century. We seldom have sex these days, and when we were having sex we were far more disfunctional than we are now, and we were hurting each-other. On the other hand, we cuddle and/or banter all the time.
2) If you are married for sex, get out.
3) If you are going to whores for companionship, seek help about fixing your life so that you are meeting more possible long term companions. If you are going to ONE whore for companionship, propose.
4)Given a choice between sex and friendship, choose friendship. You can adequately substitute for sex by yourself. You can’t adequately substitute for friendship.
5) If you can’t imagine interacting with a woman for any reason other than sex, please keep away from me.
6) Trying to reduce any human interaction to its logical motivations almost always takes the ‘human’ out of it.
As the fellow who posed the original question to Maggie, the only thing I would add to her concluding paragrah is an even stronger emphasis on the concept of gift. To take liberties with Melville’s quote, “It is one thing to sell, quite another to give.” Real love (not romantic love but the long term kind) can infuse such a powerful element of giving into duty sex that it changes its essential character–as a gift transaction, it creates and reenforces different and more extensive bonds between the giver and receiver than does a sale. Not saying anything different from Maggie here, just maybe putting the accent on sifferent words.
I’d also note, as I did to Maggie, that for at least some fellows and some relationships the concept of duty sex cuts both ways. Admittedly men are pretty easy to rev up, but there are times when it is both a deliberate choice and a gift of sorts to actually let the key turn and start the motor, when “taking a drive” was not the first or even the fifth thing on your personal agenda that night. To me it’s an important point that the equation can run, at least potentially, two ways. Perhaps this connects in turn at some level to the circumstances of my own partnership, which unites two economix actors of equal real- world earning power, and in which we therefore constantly switch and mix the economic roles of giver and receiver.
Its been an interesting question to think about and I’ll be intrigued to hear other views.
How beautifully you state it.
As for love sex and screwing, there are types of sex that are something in between. When I found a whore I really liked, all kinds of romantic feelings surfaced. And yes, I would marry a whore. I couldn’t tell her this but we both knew our affection was real.
Since ancient times the purpose of marriage is half economic at least. There ‘s the dowry, the bride price, and the often considerable amount of money women’s work generated (such as alewives). The other part was for reproduction, or pleasure. Then the likes of St. Anthony came along who saw demons everwhere, especially in womens pubic hair. This message of the sinfulness of sin (which was not part of Church doctrine) crippled generations of women and men who couldn’t screw on Sundays, on any major festival, on Fridays (becuase Friday is the day of Frigga, a form of Aphrodite). on Easter, Christmas, Whitsunday, and for all the rest of saint’s days. The Church never even discusses things like this from its history.
Ayn Rand used to say stuff like this Maggie – but she wasn’t as “romantic” about it as you are.
I mean – there’s a YouTube of her explaining her relationship with her husband – and it’s quite similar to your explanation. However, she couldn’t articulate the “love” aspect or explain the romantic motivations behind relationships – as you have done so well here.
I mean – it is a fact that no purely heterosexual male would marry another male – or choose to be in a romantic relationship with one and tie all of his finances up with that male. The reasons we do it with women are pretty obvious – it’s the sex, primarily. We can tell ourselves it’s for other reasons and try to make ourselves feel better about our motivations – but in the end – it’s the sex that brings it all together.
That’s not to say that we don’t fall in love with our partners and become willing to stay with them, even if the sex falls flat after awhile.
My wife has a brilliant mind – I like that about her, but that’s not what initially attracted me to her.
It was her ass in some very tight pants that attracted me initially!
Rand’s thinking is a bit more rigid and…I guess the right word would be masculine…than mine; I think Dominique Francon was probably the closest she ever came to putting her true self on paper. “Girly” stuff didn’t come as easily to her as it does to me, even if my writing has been compared to hers.
It amazes me that so many modern women just can’t see what I’m trying to say with that cake picture; an unfrosted cake would be boring and dry, but a cake which is mostly frosting isn’t a cake, it’s candy. The frosting is what gives it color and fun and pizzazz, but it’s not the bulk of its substance.
I remember a comment of Rand’s about Dominique Francon: “Dominique is me, when I’m in a bad mood.”
Dominique had given up on the hope that she might meet a man who was worth her time and attention. Perhaps that’s why she was inclined to be a no-bullshit kind of woman. Hey, her daddy was rich — so she didn’t need to suck up to anybody in order to keep food on her table.
Rand always maintained that *she* never really gave up on that hope. I know she always said that with complete sincerity. However, I’m not sure how much of that was actually true, and how much of it was whistling in the dark.
From what I’ve read, I don’t think she knew herself as well as she thought she did.
HALL PASS!
…Oh wait did I type that out loud?
Shia Islam recognizes the similarities of marriage and prostitution. That is why they have temporary marriages that last for as little as an hour. In modern Iran these are used quite frequently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut%E2%80%98ah
Did you read my April Fool’s Day column? 😉
Very funny. One reason it works in a Shi’a society is that temporary wives don’t count towards a man’s limit of 4 wives at one time. Although I believe you can only have 4 temporary wives at one time.
The temporary marriage contract is as follows: The woman says: ” I marry myself to you for the specified dowry (mention the amount) and for the specified time period (mention the time period)”. Then the man says: “I accept”.”
This is the best piece of writing, by far, that I’ve ever seen on the important of a wife performing duty sex and not just feeling really horny for it ahead of time sex in a marriage, but also mainly the right way to think about it and go about it.
Think of it as your gift to him of you is so delightful.
Though as well you start out by grounding it in the practical and transactional reasons for it. I’m gonna be linking this post in future discussions.
Thank you, Doug! 🙂
What really bothers me about posts like these is that it’s always the woman who has to service the man sexually so that he can be happy and relaxed, but the women’s sex drive is barely mentioned, as if women have no own desire and should just be content with satisfying the sexual whims of their partner. I know too many women who complain about having a higher sex drive than their male partner to think that this is some irrelevant exeption. Yes, I sometimes have sex with my boyfriend even if I’m not in the mood at all, but he also performs oral sex on me when I’m in the mood and he’s not.
I get the feeling that with many women (at least before the menopause) who have a much lower desire for sex than their partner it’s because they are too reserved to communicate their own wishes and consequently can’t really enjoy sex, or because their partner is not attentive.
I’ve heard that it’s not that unusual nowadays for women to want more sex than their monogamous male partners, but I’ve never known a couple like that and I tend to wonder if it’s not either the Coolidge Effect or some sort of problem with the men, either physically or emotionally (like shutting down because the woman is too aggressive and he wants to be the “hunter”). Unfortunately, I have no answer because it’s completely outside my experience.
I don’t think there’s something wrong with a man because he doesn’t want sex very often. In my experience both men and women have phases where their sex drive is either higher or lower, and sometimes those phases are out of sync. Or there are just other things on one’s mind so that sex becomes unimportant at the moment.
I’m with Sina on this one–its not really that mysterious. If both members of a couple are working for the man, it can be as simple as the woman having a great workweek and feeling good, and the guy having a crappy week and feeling tired and introverted. Add in kids and you have a recepie for libido taking a holiday.
Though perhaps this falls into Maggie’s “psychological problems” bucket.
Well, sure; a physically healthy man being habitually too exhausted for sex is certainly a problem!
Good point. Sometimes it’s a matter of timing. Men’s testosterone levels peak in the morning but a lot of women either don’t want it then or don’t have time if there is a job/kids around. And I know a couple where the woman always wants in the evening right after dinner when all her errands are done but her husband is logy from eating too much.
Completely agree!
The piece is thoughtful and well written, as always, and I’m sure it describes the normative situation in het couples. However, in my relationship, not only do I have a significantly higher sex driver than my partner, I also earn more money than him. I wouldn’t object to some more ‘transactional sex’ on his part in return for the financial and emotional support I bring to the relationship ;-)! I wonder if the lack of this is simply because men aren’t socially conditioned to ‘play the whore’ like women are and don’t really ‘get’ the concept of ‘duty sex’ as intrinsically as women?
This attitude about “transactional” sex makes a lot of people unnecessarily unhappy. I know more than one couple who are busy with kids, jobs, etc. but keep things going by basically making appointments for sex. It may not be romantic, but it’s better than bed death. And once people get started, they tend to get into it 🙂 And, as you point out, “transactional” or “appointment” sex can be just great. Any long-term couple has had a least one session that started out with “Um, OK, I guess” and ended up with the paint peeling off the walls.
When my ex wanted it but I wasn’t interested, I always told him, “you just go on and get started, I’ll catch up.” 😀
Well, Dan Savage likes to say that men get turned on and want to have sex whereas women start having sex and get turned on.
Any man that gets married under modern western society is a fool and/or sucker. No other way to put it. You are being taken advantage of. You have no right to sex from your so called “wife” or cleaning, cooking or childcare. So why would you do this, for “love” LOL.
“Any man that gets married under modern western society is a fool and/or sucker. No other way to put it. You are being taken advantage of.
You have no right to sex from your so called “wife” or cleaning, cooking or childcare. So why would you do this, for “love.”
Yeah….pretty much what I sussed out a while back too.
In addition, because of no-fault divorce, your wife can completely lose her shape/looks, deny you sex, and at least in some states, actually get pregnant by another man, but if she claims you as the father while you’re still married, you’re on the hook for child support.
And, none of the above will have any bearing on whether or not she gets half of your stuff.
If you’re a wealthy man, pre-nups basically mean guaranteed payouts for her, no matter what happens.
This is terribly cynical. Some women are sociopathic predators who get married, these women will eat your soul. Women also run into men like this.
In marriage sex is part of the unspoken contract. Not being able to get any over a noted period of time (keep a diary), is grounds for divorce, for a man or a woman. But forcing your partner to have sex is rape. This was one of the most historic Supreme Court rulings ever handed down.
Maggie, I love your sense of humor. “Oh, just start without me, I’ll catch up.”
🙂
First time commenter. I found this site from The Agitator and have been reading almost daily ever since. This is a great article! Maggie, I guess it’s not surprising that a whore (I love getting to use this word in a dignified, respectful manner) would have such insightful commentary on sex and relationships, but I continue to be amazed by the rationality you apply to these topics. Your writing does remind me of Rand, more specifically if Dominique were writing, but you intertwine reason and feminine sexuality much more gracefully. I’ve only been really learning and thinking about philosophy and sexuality for a few years, so it means a lot to read about both, and learn about their close relationship, from a seasoned pro. Even more than politics, sex is a topic on which hardly anyone has something reasonable to say. So thanks for hosting such a great site.
Wow, Alicia, thank you! You and other readers can have no idea how much your compliments mean to me, especially when my reason is complimented. A male friend of mine once said to me, “You know, you’re extremely rational for a woman.” Since he clearly intended it as a compliment (even if a half-joking one) I took it as such, and all the compliments I get from men and women both are beginning to convince me that maybe I’m extremely rational, period, not just in comparison to other women. And that’s pretty cool.
Thanks again, and please keep reading!
Maggie,
You’re a rape supporter. Transactional sex is rape.
Or did you forget?
That’s bullshit. If adult people consent, it’s no one else’s business, except maybe your wife or husband. I get the feeling that with a significant supply of whores, men beat their wives less and couples stay together longer.
Although something puzzles me, Maggie. You’ve claimed a few times that more whores = less rape. Criminologists, sociologists and psychologists all agree that rape is about hostility, not lust. If you think of all the rapists who break into an old woman’s home and rape her in bed, it’s fairly obvious to me this is not about lust (a toothless, bald invalid?) but rage.
No they don’t agree, either; in fact the truth is exactly the opposite. The “rape is a crime of power, not lust” myth was cynically invented by feminists in the early ’70s so women would continue to put themselves in danger by being alone with men in sexual situations. Old ladies who get raped are as anomalous as child prostitutes; the vast majority of rape victims are young, sexually attractive women in unsafe sexual situations. There’s even evidence that conjugal visits reduce the rate of prison rape, though it’s hard to tell because the punitive mindset of the prison establishment makes proper research difficult (just as criminalization makes prostitution research more difficult).
Gawaine, you’re a man; think about it; does “rage” give you a hard-on, or does lust?
No, rage doesn’t give me a hard on.The women I know who have been raped were raped by fathers or uncles, or in a case close to home, a guy climbed through a window into a dark room and raped the first sleeping female he came across. She was under the covers. How this could provoke lust is beyond me.
Sadists can only get off after inflicting so much pain. The dominance of it makes perfect sense in explaining necrophilia – the victim may have a crushed head but the necro has sex with her because he can do anything he wants to a corpse and it makes him feel like god.
There is sex in crimes like this and rape, but women rape children and men with instruments. I’ve never read any interviews with these women but it just seems unlikely to me that this is directly related to lust. It’s cruelty directed at someone’s genitals because that is very painful and humiliating.
There is also sex a la Pamela Smart, who had sex with two teens in exchange for them killing her husband.
The great majority of rapists are not sadists. Nobody in our culture, neither male nor female, wants to admit the truth about rape: that it’s programmed into our genes. Men can’t admit it because it reduces them to the level of animals, and women because it’s just too scary. But the fact of the matter is that if a woman keeps her head, it’s not impossible to talk a rapist out of what he’s about to do, and with rage that would be impossible.
Your examples prove that rape is sexual rather than disproving them. You don’t know that your dark room example hadn’t seen the women of that house before, and even if he hadn’t you’re gonna tell me you can’t imagine how stranger sex could excite a guy? C’mon, Gawaine, I was born at night, but not last night. I’ve heard the “paper bag” jokes; not being able to see a woman’s face is a turn-on for some men. As for fathers and uncles, how can you imagine “rage” is a more likely emotion for them than lust? The very idea is absurd. People living together often feel lust for one another, even if they’re related; the incest taboo therefore gives rise to what Freud called “family drama”, the concentration on things that annoy one about the person (one’s parent, sibling or child) so as to defuse the sexual attraction and put distance between the actors (often by the slamming of a door). That’s one of the main reasons such drama starts after puberty.
Mutilation of genitals by women is NOT rape; it’s an entirely different phenomenon which is wrongheadedly classified as rape by governmental operatives who know nothing about sexology and are motivated by a false “egalitarian” gender view and the desire to file things in neat boxes. The only thing these assaults have in common is that they involve the genitals; well, for a man to hammer a nail involves rhythmic motion of his arm, but that doesn’t make it masturbation.
And what Pamela Smart did wasn’t “rape”, it was prostitution; she paid for a service with sex. The fact that the men were young is totally immaterial except insofar as that made them more likely to accept the deal in her eyes; calling it “rape” is another example of prosecutors bending and twisting reality to fit their stupid laws.
Dear Maggie,
I find the logic of this statement: “cynically invented by feminists in the early ’70s so women would continue to put themselves in danger by being alone with men in sexual situations.” rather odd. It sounds like you’re saying that the women are to blame because they were with men (or not, depending upon how dark the parking garage was). And If I remember the case correctly, technically she was a rapist because the boys were minors. Now I don’t think that’s rape – the age of consent varies all over the planet. As for rape being programmed in our genes, maybe it is. After all we are “The Third Chimpanzee,” as Dr. Jared Diamond explains. Chimps are very aggressive animals, and we contain 97% of the same genes. However I know enough about genes to know that their influence can be overcome by conscious work.
Back to the all men are rapists: Do you really believe that? I’ve never even had a fantasy about rape. I don’t like it if my partner is passive, let alone crying her eyes out. I know I am not alone.
The paper bag jokes mean “She’s so ugly you’d have to put a paper bag over her face to fuck her.” I know that some straight men and some lesbians have a mask fetish, apparently to make the other look dangerous. So there is that.
Lesbians also rape. Maybe that gene is in all of us?
As for rapists being sadists: Quantitative analysis of this would be difficult, for I was told there is no psychological test that identifies sadists. To me the violence speaks for itself.
That all people are potential murderers I can easily believe. Given too much stress, people will kill. Does this mean I’m going to hide in a fortified bunker? Nah, I take risks, because without taking risks, life isn’t much of an adventure.
As for incest, I agree that is should be considered separately. But one of the patients I worked with on a locked psychiatric unit raped his three month old daughter because she ‘seduced’ him.
I wonder Maggie, if you think the victim of date rape is responsible. When I was young there was in men’s minds a difference between rape and forcible seduction. I hope that distincition is gone
How is that assigning “blame”? I did a column on this a few months ago; if someone leaves the keys to his car on the hood and it gets stolen, nobody calls it “blaming the victim” to ask “why did you do such a dumb thing?” But if a woman, who should KNOW what men are like, lets herself be alone and unchaperoned with a strange man it’s “blaming the victim” to say she needs to learn common sense? I call bullshit. The idea that sex is magically different from every other human behavior is the cause of much of the conflict in the world (especially between the sexes) and is the main reason my trade is still criminalized or treated as a “special case”.
The idea that a woman can rape a man of any age without an object is a bogus definition of rape. If she uses a strap-on or broom handle on his anus without his consent, that is rape. But if she is the one being penetrated it is NOT RAPE. Sexual assault, sex with a minor, whatever, but the word rape does NOT mean that. My encounter with the Latino wrestler was not rape because he did not succeed in penetrating me without my consent. The word rape has a specific meaning, and calling sex with a willing minor, or sex in which the “perpetrator” is the one penetrated, or sex in which no penetration occurs, by the name “rape” is nonsense.
Yes, rape is natural; that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable in civilized society. Theft, assault and murder are natural as well. So yes, every man is a potential rapist if he’s pushed hard enough, just as every person is a thief or murderer if pushed hard enough. Again, let’s not pretend sex is magically different from all other human behaviors. Any human is capable of any crime under the proper circumstances, but the normal person can avoid 99% of those circumstances and the superior person can only be pushed into them by truly extraordinary stimuli (psychosis, drugs, trying to save a loved one, etc). The fact that you, specifically, don’t find overpowering a woman exciting (for either innate or learned reasons) is meaningless; I don’t personally like spectator sports but I won’t deny that enjoyment of them is a natural human trait. And your definition of “violence” is both academic and political; drugging a girl to have sex with her isn’t violent but it’s still rape. Not all rape is violent because not all force is violent.
I’m having trouble reconciling “But if a woman, who should KNOW what men are like, lets herself be alone and unchaperoned with a strange man it’s “blaming the victim” to say she needs to learn common sense? I call bullshit” with ” Any human is capable of any crime under the proper circumstances, but the normal person can avoid 99% of those circumstances….”.
I think my issue may be that in the first passage we’re too fliudly between discussing capability and intent. It’s not clear to me in the first sentence whether you really mean “all men are capable of rape” (I agree) or “all men can form the intent of rape if women are silly enough to give them the opportunity” (I emphatically don’t agree).
A woman in a civilized venue can indeed be alone with 99.9 percent of strange men, who not only won’t hurt her but will probably protect her at risk of needless injury to themselves. But there is the one in a thousand that will rape her. The problem is for her, the risk of rape, though of low probability, is of very high consequence– so much so that even one in a thousand odds may not be worth risking. And, furthermore, though she may be a very good judge of character, she always runs the risk of being wrong-her perspicacity can reduce but not eliminate her risk.
All this is a backhanded way of saying that the “knowing what men are like” formula sticks in my craw. I am a man, and I assure you I am not capable of forming the intent of rape short of some apocalyptic change in my fortunes and environment. In ordinary social intercourse its inconceivable that I would allow innate capability to converted into intent.
Yes, a woman still has a problem with me– she still does not know, on brief acquaintance, that I am this way rather than the other. But that’s a problem of information asymmetry, not of the innate qualities of men. The formula should be not “what men are like” but “what some men are like–and the impossibility of telling which man is which on short acquaintance.”
Bandoblue, surely you recognize that it is precisely the differing male and female views of acceptable sexual behavior which is responsible for the majority of rapes? Study after study has shown that males invariably interpret female signals as more sexual than they are; a male test subject will say that a female test subject’s interaction with him indicated sexual interest, while the woman’s view of the same interaction is that she was just being polite. “Date rape” is almost entirely due to such crossed signals.
The average man (my readers obviously included) consistently interprets the word “rape” as “forcible rape”, but both women and the law recognize other kinds. I totally agree that 99.9% of men will never commit forcible rape, but only about 27% of all rape is forcible. Every year, many (usually young) men’s lives are ruined because they had sex with women they honestly believed had consented and didn’t find out otherwise until the police knocked on their doors. Certainly some of these cases were examples of “buyer’s remorse”, but many others involve situations where the judgment of both parties was impaired by alcohol. The wise woman does not let herself become involved in such situations in the first place, and thereby avoids the whole issue.
You’re familiar with the rules of guns: “Never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot” and “never shoot anyone unless you intend to kill.” This is because if one points a gun at someone, there is a chance it will go off, and if that happens the target may die. Well, Maggie’s rule for women is “never be alone with a man you don’t absolutely trust unless you intend to have sex with him,” because you may end up having it whether you like it or not…and as in the case of the gun, it may not really be any one party’s fault if it does.
OK, I follow you better now. You are right, I was thinking more of violent rape than date rape.
I shy away from contemplating the latter because it frankly scares me to death. I’m of that “Oleanna” generation of male teachers that learned on day one never, ever to be alone with a female student under any circumstances whatsoever. All office hours with an open door, or better still, in a public room. A single accusation, merited or not, could destroy your career and life. Though we male profs looked on it with equal generalization as “you know what women are like”–ie, all equally capable of trashing your life with a false, malicious, or deluded accusation.
Thank God I’m married and monogamous by inclination–you remind me how much being single or screwing around came with a lot of d–m risk.
You’re absolutely right, and it’s damned sad. Women have always been able to destroy men’s reputations with “Potiphar’s Wife” accusations, but in the past such behavior was rightly viewed as evil so it was very rare. Today, unfortunately, a man not only has to worry about such malicious lies, but also the possibility of delusional or misguided ones (and all encouraged by the neofeminist collective whether true or not). My husband says the same thing as you; no man in his industry will ever allow himself to be alone with a woman, even in an elevator.
How is a woman having non-consensual sex with an unconscious male not rape?
How is that possible, unless the woman is using a strap-on?
Gawaine,
Rape is about sex, not rage. it can be about both, but it’s always about sex.
Men are taking sex not to make some political point. Rapists do it to get their rocks off.
Women see this as political because it’s *women* who use sex to control and for political purposes. They project their own desires and motivations onto men. Men, as you likely know, pretty much just want sex. The politics of sex are largely irrelevant.
Political correctness has made women miss the truth as much as men.
Everything else is BS.
Rape is about sex, but not just about sex. My best example for both points is the existence (and popularity) of rape-themed porn. Think about it: if rape has little or nothing to do with sex, what the hell is it doing in porn? It’s there to turn on the viewer.
But it isn’t just sex, either. Porn can (and does) portray sex of the “Hi. You’re cute. Wanna blowjob?” variety as easily as it portrays rape. In fact, portraying rape means that they have to spend time showing all that chasing around, threatening and/or overpowering, oh-please-don’t stuff. This is time that could be spent showing genitals in action. So something about the non-consensual nature of it makes it more of a turn-on to some viewers. The idea that she’s taking a stiff penis between her legs because she has to instead of because she wants to is sexier to a significant number of viewers.
And some men aren’t satisfied with porn. Some men seem to enjoy sex more if the other person doesn’t enjoy it, and for whatever reason don’t deny this want.
But Sailor, that “chasing around”, etc is sex. Contrary to what some people (mostly men) seem to think, sex is not just intercourse; it’s a whole range of behaviors. A lot of BDSM doesn’t involve any penetration at all, but it’s still sex. Power, control and all that are part of the whole range of sexuality. So yeah, rape is almost completely about sex (completely in most cases); it’s just not only about intercourse.
Well, yes, I suppose so. And it’s certainly true that sex isn’t just intercourse (note that my example was “Wanna blowjob?” instead of “Wanna fuck?”). But it’s still kind of my point: rape isn’t just strait-forward reproductive urge. Nor, for that matter, is a lot consensual sex.
Sex, including that part of it that doesn’t make a baby, is some complicated stuff.
I guess it’s a combination of both lust and the power dynamics inherent in all interpersonal relationships.
Ideally, today, both parties in a relationship have equal power but it’s not always so irl. Traditionally, it is the man who has overt power be it by virtue of the larger size & strength granted to him via sexual dimorphism or the social power granted by the patriarchy or anything in between. The fact that it’s always been women who have greater scope to completely control the man is irrelevant; it’s the appearances that matter here. Power is a quality that is good for anyone to have for themselves but maybe not for others. Power is sexy for men to have from both male & female perspectives; for men because more power = more tail & for women because more powerful man = more security for me and the kids, we’re set for life!
I don’t think I need to repeat that for men, sex is just the physical part involving the erogenous organs but is much wider for women.
The way I see it, forcible rape requires both the lust & power aspects to occur, and if not lust then at least enough sexual frustration to dehumanise the victim & make all holes look the same. There’s always the implicit assumption on the part of the perpetrator that the victim has no way of retaliating against them, even if that assumption is only because of lust-addled brains; remember: it’s what it looks like that matters. A lone woman in a dark parking lot, someone who’s asleep, a social inferior, a child, an old invalid, all of these examples of real life rape victims have one thing in common: they appear to have no way to go against the rapist. No matter how horny he is, a man never has the audacity to think he can get away with screwing a Queen against her will. It’s always when men think they potentially have power over the victim that rape happens.
The power aspect is what the “rape is not about sex” definition focuses on while here, Maggie focuses on the lust aspect. Both definitions ignore the other aspect. Maggie’s way of describing it at least implies the inherent power that men can have over women but because she doesn’t state that fact explicitly and instead goes by the preventative approach, making the statement that one should assume the worst, it seems like she’s saying that all men can & will violently rape anyone they can.
From a working woman’s perspective, her way of looking at it isn’t wrong.
But then again, not everyone is reading that in hoespeech.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this.
I can’t say that you’re wrong, but as usual it’s complicated. For instance, there are plenty of cases where the fantasy seems to be raping the queen (or other powerful woman). This usually takes the form of her becoming no longer powerful (the monarchy has been overthrown) or the rapist becoming more powerful (she’s the queen, but I’m a wizard!). So is that realistic? No, but fantasy often isn’t realistic.
Maggie,
I have been reading a lot of your blog and I must comment that is a phenomenal piece of work. You should think about writing a book. To be honest, I feel your blog will make for multiple very good books, not just one.
One thing which I really like about your blog is how you state many things which we all observe in real life, but can either not state so clearly and precisely the way you do or in many cases are too brainwashed by media to accept otherwise.
I loved your posts ‘drawn that way’ and ‘myth of the wanton’. Especially this part of your post
“love is the icing, not the cake. Marriage is first and foremost a socioeconomic relationship, and the modern insistence that love is the be-all and end-all of marriage is one of the primary reasons for the skyrocketing divorce rate, because couples who share no bond other than the biochemical one we call “romantic love” have no reason to stay together when time and adversity weakens or destroys it. True love is a much more complex emotional bond, but it takes time to develop and rarely does so between people who are not already bound together by other, more mundane bonds such as blood or mutual dependence. ”
As a guy in his mid 20s, I read and enjoy your posts on male-female dynamics, female sexuality and escorts more than the others but your blog is really nice all round. I know lots and lots of people who benefit a lot if they read your blog.
Thank you for the compliments, Johnny! 🙂
Thank you Maggie for this statement. I’m not much impressed with monogamous marriage, no matter how hyped it is in our culture. My parents HATED each other, but they didn’t divorce, they went on acting stupid around me. And I doubt if I would be purely monogamous; I would have to be upfront with my potential wife about this, none of this sneaking around, that’s emotionally dangerous.
[…] and/or protection.) And actually in this post, she says similar, and goes into the topic of transactional sex and marriage […]