Suppress prostitution, and capricious lusts will overthrow society.
– St. Augustine
Here’s another response to a reader letter which, I felt, merited its own column.
I’m in late middle age, but when I was in my twenties I was what those people you wrote about in “False Target” would call creepy, too. If there was anything wrong with me, nobody would tell me; they just found “polite” reasons to always want to be somewhere else. If the trade had been legal, it would have made both my life and theirs easier; I would simply go there, and get what I needed. Lacking that, I had to carry on as “Creeper” did, hoping that some woman would decide to have a heart. I would never have forced anyone, but I think I would have taken advantage of someone who’d had a little too much to drink. I do not consider this rape; many women go along with it on purpose, either because they feel more comfortable or because it makes them feel less responsible. Any adult who chooses to drink and then does something he/she will regret afterwards is morally responsible for that choice, whether the “something” is to fight, to drive, or to have sex. If the woman was actually unconscious or drugged against her will, obviously that would be a different story. But why can’t women understand that most “creeps” are just frustrated, not dangerous?
There are several reasons most women don’t understand the relationship between male creepiness and lack of sex: inattention to detail is the most important one (it’s obvious if one simply pays attention to male behavior), but another is ignorance about evolution and the biological reasons for the existence of the sex drive. Oh, I’m sure nearly everyone over the age of ten knows that sex makes babies (even in our prudish, hide-the-truth culture), but society, religion and feminism pile so many layers of romanticism on top of that (especially for girls) that people lose sight of it, and the lies that sex is only a want rather than a need, and that men and women are exactly the same, convince naïve girls that the raging male sex drive is as easily thwarted as their own mellower version. When a person is starving or eating only poor food he suffers from malnutrition, and when a man’s only sexual release is his own hand he begins to sink into a kind of sexual malnutrition that results first in increasingly extreme fantasies, then really off-the-wall and even grotesque fantasies, then creepiness, and finally (in some cases) proto-rapist behavior or actual rape. I’ve seen this time and again both in personal life and work; a man who hasn’t had any in a while might talk about or even suggest all kinds of weird stuff, but the moment he achieves release it evaporates. That’s why some men want to kick a whore out as soon as they’re finished; in the mind of such a man, hiring her in the first place was something “weird” and perverted, and as soon as the pressure is gone and hormone levels have returned to normal he is repulsed by what he did and wants her out the door as soon as possible.
Sex workers of all kinds, but most especially whores, perform a vital service to the community by allowing men to “blow off steam” before they get to the “creepy” stage; even men with less money can hire lower-priced streetwalkers or go to inexpensive massage parlors, so that only the truly destitute will have no recourse (and that’s no different from them lacking food or shelter, anyway). So, though most men won’t commit forcible rape no matter how frustrated they are, many men will (if frustrated enough) begin to suffer a kind of cloudiness in their moral vision that allows them to rationalize that taking advantage of drunk, incapacitated or even sleeping women is “not really” rape, just as a desperately-hungry man will steal to fill his belly. It still doesn’t make it right, but it doesn’t make such a man an incorrigible monster who deserves imprisonment for decades, either.
I am deeply committed to the principle of harm reduction, which holds that it’s futile and even destructive for society to forbid the various things people do to feel good, and that the proper response of government is to take measures to reduce the harm which results from these things. Nearly everyone who espouses harm reduction considers prostitution a subject for the philosophy (in other words, they want to reduce the problems associated with the sex trade by eliminating criminalization, providing shelters for teen runaways, helping streetwalkers to exit if they wish, etc), but many of them don’t recognize it as part of the solution for the social problems which result from the disparity in the sex drives of men and women, such as marital infidelity, rape and the kind of sexual exploitation which feminists insist is rape, MRAs insist isn’t and most governments tend to go back and forth about.
For some taboo behaviors, the only harm (or at least the overwhelming bulk of it) results from criminalization; simply put, if the thing were not illegal, little if any harm could be attributed to it (marijuana and many sexual behaviors fall into this category). For others, the majority of the harm comes from criminalization, and harm-reduction laws and/or free-market solutions would take care of the rest (IV drug use spreads disease, but that can be mitigated by needle exchanges; gamblers can become obsessive and ruin themselves, but this happens far less in legal casinos than in gangster-run backroom gambling). Activities which involve unwilling participants must obviously remain criminal (in fact, they are the only things which should be), but common sense and harm reduction principles demand that the government should stop obstructing businesses which have been shown to reduce their prevalence. A number of studies have demonstrated that availability of sexually explicit materials reduces rape, and others uphold the millennia-old wisdom that ready availability of prostitutes does the same thing (one predicts a 25% reduction in the US rape rate were prostitution to be decriminalized here).
If prostitution were decriminalized everywhere, the stigma surrounding it would eventually begin to fade in those whose minds are not warped by anti-sex belief systems, and more men will feel comfortable availing themselves of the services of sex workers before they started to get “creepy”; freed of the frustration and desperation which distorted their personalities they would probably be far more able to attract girlfriends, and the legal system would see far fewer cases of men who had stepped across blurry lines because their mental states had caused them to misread cues or to allow their own compelling needs to obscure the rights of others. This would not entirely solve the problem of “he said-she said” situations (which will exist as long as the human race does): young women also need to be taught to behave sensibly and to reject foolish neofeminist notions of absolute female entitlement and any unwanted sex being equivalent to gun-to-the-head aggravated rape by a stranger; the law must return to the presumption of innocence and stop accepting statements as fact without physical evidence; and society needs to stop preaching the ridiculous, childish, patronizing dogmas that sex is magical, that women are fragile little flowers who must be protected from our own decisions, and that any rape, no matter how iffy or nonviolent, is absolutely the worst thing that can happen to a woman.
I think you’re missing something. Some men aren’t “creepy” because of the lack of sex, it’s because they’re socially awkward.
I answered the letter I received. If he felt his “creepiness” decades ago was due to social awkwardness rather than frustration, he would have said so.
This exemplifies the reasons why I rarely read this blog anymore. What men apparently slowly go inside when they can’t get laid? I must be pretty crazy myself then! Ready to tear the clothes off the first woman I see! Seriously? To think they accuse feminists of “misandry”, when otherwise intelligent women such as you spout such non-sense.
The ethics of rape, as told by feminists, are incredibly simple. People have the right to their own body. This includes the right to reject another person’s attempt to touch their body.
Different specific rape scenarios might involve different levels of violence, or force vs. coercion vs trickery, but if someone touches your body without you in some way giving consent, then it is a bad thing, regardless of what you call it. Most feminists acknowledge that consent is complicated, but they all agree that ideally everyone should be able to state what they want, and have their desires and bodily integrity respected. Unfortunately the system of ideas and cultural norms that feminists have dubbed “patriarchy” causes consent to be muddled. Part of patriarchy is the notion that a woman’s sexual desire is minimal or non-existent, resulting in horny men chasing after women. Coincidentally this matches a world where only men’s sexual desires are acknowledged, and one where misogynist asshole men are on top.
Also coincidentally the same constellation of ideas that claims that prostitution is always wrong. Fortunately we have been moving away from that. Which BTW, can also explain why rape rates have gone down. As opposed to your post, where in the beginning that “when a man’s only sexual release is his own hand” it is woefully insufficient, but later you cite a study that corresponds internet access, and presumably internet porn for masturbation, within a state negatively with the state’s rape rate. Neither really work because BOTH the nations rape rate AND the sex rates of young people are going down.
Young men are getting laid less, but also raping less.
Unfortunately Maggie McNeil seems to subscribe to a sort of partial patriarchy, she rejects some ideas and embraces others, ignorant of the fact that most of the time all of these ideas act in concert.
If only men have super-libidos, why do women occasionally rape men?
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/ive-got-the-t-shirt-and-the-trauma-response-to-go-with-it/
My philosophy teacher has a friend who was raped at knife point by a woman.
NISVS Report 2010: “Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime;” made meaning forced or coerced into penetrative sex, i.e. rape.
Another odd end I feel is appropriate: Many point to hook up culture to show how hyper-sexual the youngest generation is, but it’s apparently women who are driving this, and they’re not looking for anything besides sexy sex.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/boys-on-the-side/309062/?single_page=true
Also: Bonobos. Bonobos contradict the evolutionary psychology that people use to justify why men are horny and women are not. Bonobos form matriarchal societies held together by copious amount of sex. Female Bonobos initiate sex most of the time, with both males and each other, this is key to maintaining their matriarchy. Sex is not procreative, it exists for social bonding. Males will offer fruit for sex. Bonobos have a radically different set of behaviors from Chimpanzees, but the two species are otherwise identical, and genetically they are equi-distant from humanity. The reason why human society is typically prudish and male dominated can’t be explained with genetics, let alone inter-species comparison.
Apparently, you confuse morality and philosophy with pragmatism, and don’t understand the principle of harm reduction at all; you remind me of the people who say that we shouldn’t have needle exchanges because they “send the message” that drugs aren’t bad and excuse lack of self-control.
I find it fascinating that you attempt to use bonobos to disprove my statements when in fact they support them; male bonobos are far less sexually frustrated than male chimps, and they also have far less war, rape, etc.
And your statement about female rape is the exact equivalent of “if falling from a great height is so fatal, how come some people survive it, huh?” Pointing to rare occurrences to “disprove” general trends is at best moronic and at worst deceitful.
Stress builds up. It creates a pathology within the mind that builds up. Once the release occurs, its fine. Personally, I find sex to be an urge rather than a need. A very strong urge mind you. I’ve attempted practicing what is called Brahmacharya, or rather celibacy, without any form of masturbation. Summarised in this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmacharya#Sexual_abstinence).
Without invoking the entire mystical thing, I link it with sublimation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(psychology)#Sexual_Sublimation) which is an attempt to channel the energy into different disciplines.
Is it possible? Yes. Is it extremely difficult? Very. It takes a lot of personal commitment, discipline and avoidance of stimuli. You reach a point where you go a bit crazy but then can ‘transcend’ it for lack of a better word. Tried it for a month, did feel very much more energetic. My then-girlfriend though decided that she preferred having a non-celibate boyfriend after one month of me trying the whole celibacy thing out.
Sweden has an incidence of rape per capita seven times higher than that of culturally similar Denmark. The broader legal definition of rape in Sweden surely explains some of the difference, but I think the (still legal) escort ads in the Danish tabloid Ektrabladet explain most of it. =)
Ektrabladet 😛
What a resource!
Extra bladed, heh. Well, it just means Extra Paper (as in, newspaper). It’s a tabloid.
I love your commonsense approach. Well, what would be commonsense if it was as prevalent as the term implies.
http://lolzombie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/8eqf.jpeg
Thanks Sailor,
That one goes in my poster collection!
A friend of mine-former member of the SDS and the Weathermen-swore that Ayn Rand was a deep cover Communist agent, trained by both Lenin and Trotsky, then sent to America to propogate a socio-economic system that was so extreme that it would ultimately destroy the capitalist system, providing the oncoming world-wide Depression Lenin saw coming (my friend claimed) did not finish it off.
I thought he was crazy, but mjaybe he was right.
It has been suggested that the Fred Phelps group, of “GOD HATES FAGS” infamy, is a gang of deep cover liberals, working to make conservative Christians look bad.
I don’t buy that, but hey, maybe it’s Poe’s Law in real life?
😉
I agree with everything you said here but …
Men, are not animals and, at the end of the day – we can control our sex drive using our minds and some of the techniques you talk about – like decriminalized prostitution.
I’ve never had the problem of having to compromise my values in order to rationalize using devious methods to obtain sex. It’s not “gentlemanly” to take advantage of a woman – drunk or not. There is no excuse for a healthy man to harm a woman – therefore he should not do it. Women are to be protected by men – not harmed.
The methods that a man uses to “control” his sex drive should be left up to his individual choice. I’m convinced that some men seek refuge in the church and involvement with religion and “pious” lifestyle to impose discipline upon their sex drives. If it works for them, it’s fine with me. i know a lot of men who are believers in God and active in the church and they aren’t creepy or behave in predatory ways toward women.
Some men, like me I suppose, just never really did see that much difference in “courting” a girl for sex and just paying her outright for it. I’ve never had the problem of feeling “icky” after sex with a hooker to the point I have to ask her to leave right away. In fact, usually just the opposite since I seem to spend more time talking to them than having sex with them. The good thing about this “method” is that, after spending a lot of time with hookers then pretty much most of the “mystery” that makes you nervous around normal women evaporates. Once you are more comfortable around girls – you’ll be more attractive to them since you look more confident to them.
Not every method of “coping” is perfect and it can be hard to “blend” approaches. For instance, when you get married you kind of want to stay faithful to the woman you love and this can pose problems over the long haul especially if her interest in sex wanes before yours does. Also – just the absence of variation in sex can be a problem. For me, with women I’m in love with – I just can’t bring myself to the point of asking them for certain kinds of sexual acts. Like, for instance … two girls at the same time. If you know your wife just really isn’t in to it you aren’t going to just ask or demand it from her. You respect her boundaries and you just do without this “variation”.
But, over time, this can build up and cause you problems so I think it’s best to seek a constructive “outlet” somewhere with a hooker who is willing to give you these kinds of variations or make up for a lack of sex in a marriage. I just wish women would realize that guys who are genuinely in love with them can still go out and hire a hooker and remain in love with them.
I think Maggie has said before that a wife who won’t put out the goods shouldn’t blame her husband when he goes elsewhere to get what he wants. However, I think a lot of men go elsewhere because they’re actually respecting their wife’s boundaries wrt sex. For instance … let’s say I like “deepthroat” but my wife can’t do it and I really don’t want our relationship to suffer from me demanding she learn how – so i could just find another woman who’s willing to do that without causing any stress on the relationship with my wife. Does that make sense?
Au contraire; men (and women) are indeed animals. We may be the smartest monkeys, but we’re still monkeys. And not everyone is as good at controlling himself as most, yet our laws presume that to be the case (which is just as bad at presuming everyone to be incompetent). The only moral, yet practical system is harm reduction, in which the laws assume most people can handle the problems which derive from their urges and behaviors (and therefore don’t criminalize those behaviors under paternalistic excuses), but set up or allow safety measures for those who can’t.
Well, animals technically, but my sense of things like reasoning, purpose, imagination and good and bad set me apart from animals – or at least on a different level from them.
I speak with some authority here. My testosterone levels have ALWAYS been higher than you’re average dude’s – while my intelligence has always been a bit lower than most. Yet – I have never had a problem with treating women respectfully. Never had a “rape” fantasy or fantasy about a child and always found constructive outlets for my sex drive. I’m pretty sure if i can do it – then any man can with a bit of effort.
And – these safety measures you’re talking about – read my comment again – I’m using many of the safety measures you’re advocating – we agree on that part.
But I won’t excuse any man who harms a woman no matter what piddly-assed “I can’t control myself” excuse he throws out.
Wow, don’t think I’ve ever seen a guy pull out the apex fallacy before. A dude with above average testosterone and mediocre intellect (what no mention of being quarterback in high school?) finds it easy to get along with women so it should be even easier for all the little dweebs?
I was a linebacker in High School.
However, I didn’t say anything about “little dweebs” and your comment is a bit of a troll on me so I’m wondering what about me rubs you so negatively – but I’m not too concerned about it actually.
I think, if you look at what I said – if anyone has a more urgent need for sex it would be someone like me. And since testosterone is the “evil hormone” that causes men to do evil things – then I should be one of those guys who can’t control himself. Did I say anything about “getting along” with women? No – no I did not. But, now that you mention it – I do get along well with them but that isn’t what I was talking about.
So the point is – I’m the guy who should have to do superhuman things to control his sexual urges – yet nothing I do to control them is really that hard. I’ve been married and I’ve had girlfriends – and I’ve also paid a lot of women for sex. Any little “dweeb” can pay a woman for sex – they don’t have to be me and, in fact – many little “dweebs” probably have more money than I do and can pay for more sex. The world just ain’t fair is it?
Actually, the chemical most associated with male violence isn’t testosterone, it’s serotonin. And it isn’t high levels which cause the problems, but low. Men imprisoned for violent crimes have far lower serotonin levels on average than men in the general population.
Yes, and if you think about it, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what men who are “after” women actually want. A sexually aroused man is perfectly capable of achieving orgasmic release through auto-erotic activities (masturbation). A man doesn’t see a prostitute simply for an orgasm, but for normal heterosexual contact with a member of the opposite sex. (Of course, part of that experience is achieving orgasm in the presence of a pleasant female, but there’s a lot more to it than that.)
This comes into play where I live, because there is constant attempt to prevent sexual touching as a commercial act here, even if there is no actual sex involved. (It used to be legal, and now it is illegal, but the law is on the books but not enforced.)
Intimate Touching, as you know, increases serotonin levels even by itself.
For some reason, men aren’t supposed to want this, and are just supposed to be out to have cold, fun-less sex. It’s one of the many forms of cultural misandry that’s practised against any man who isn’t high status enough to resist it.
This is separate from the subject of rape, so I’ll bring it back on topic. For a moment, lets leave men, such as monks, who voluntarily pursue celibacy in the desire to achieve more important spiritual goals. Even monks will falter in this pursuit occasionally. More importantly, the monk chooses a life of celibacy because he believes he can handle it.
Men who are unable to get physical intimacy, rather than voluntarily opting out, are damaged in multiple ways. Status wise they are “dweebs” (Omega Males to use a woefully misunderstood classification system) the lowest of the low. I actually believe they have lower status than serial rapists and mass murderers! They also don’t gain the health benefits of having someone to hold and make love too, so they are doubly damned.
I’ll admit, I have no regard for such men if they refuse to simply try the phone book under escort services to improve their lives. However, I do recognize that they are “walking wounded” and should mostly be handled gingerly.
I understand that Maggie ran an honest business. Most of the listings for Escort Services around here are either entrapment schemes by law enforcement or scams where they will talk big, but there won’t be any sex involved and you’ll be hundreds of dollars poorer. And if you do find one that provides sex, the quality will be terrible.
The only young ladies I have found to be even halfway good at sex were amateurs who I met through personal connections.
In contrast, the professional ladies overseas are much, much better and quite a bit cheaper.
Truthfully, the phone book isn’t really the best place to look. I could give detailed advice, but it would be out of date, since I stopped playing after I fell in love. Suffice to say, like most other things that you used to look for in the phone-book, you are better off searching the Internet now.
(When I started, that wasn’t the case. The best place to look was in free magazines you could find in places that sold pornographic video tapes and sex toys. Things did improve a bit when the Internet became prominent, though the downside was it was a new way for the police to get involved.)
Then what’s the androgenic link that makes low serotonin so much more dangerous in males than females? Because females don’t experience problems with violent behavior of the magnitude that males do.
Also – just to add – where did I say I didn’t agree with Maggie’s “harm reduction” theories?
I agree with them all – perfectly. I just don’t think the lack of them should be used by men to justify taking advantage of women.
I believe men are responsible for their own actions. Is there someone here that disagrees with me on that? Please say so.
I’m sure all or most of us agree with you on that.
I do wish you’d quit telling us how dumb you are. Anybody who’s been here for very long really is dumb if he buys that.
My point was that even if your sex drive is 2x your rate of female receptivity is like 20x. So multiply your worst dry spell by 10. And let’s pretend hookers don’t exist because they are illegal, which is the reality for a lot of men because of their careers or timidity. Maybe you can’t imagine it, but it really is possible that your mental state would deteriorate like if you were kept in solitary confinement for too long.
Not that I’m sure that deprivation commonly leads to “legitimate rape,” since many of those guys seem like natural born psychopaths. But having the prostitute option really should relax expectations so that guys don’t push so much until they can be accused of “harassment” or “coercion”.
Surely you don’t think I’m excusing rape? But once a woman is raped, “catching”, “punishing” and “blaming” the rapist won’t undo the trauma. I think any sane person would rather see the number of rapes lowered, and doing that takes understanding why they happen rather than arguing inane religious or political “theories”.
Maggie, on this one I agree with you one hundred percent. Science–including psychology–is behind you, not Krulac, who I think is getting hs info on self-control from Ayn Rand.
I was one of those poor bastards who was both frustrated and socially akward, so I definitely gave out a creepy vibe. It is the awareness that we might, under the right circumstance, not hear a women’s “no” that scares the most moral amongst us, and plays havoc with our sex lives and dating.
I reckon you don’t know enough about this blog to know that Ayn Rand is a person Maggie holds in high regard.
Thanks though – for comparing MY positions to her – I consider that a compliment.
Also – I’ll note that there are a lot of “beta male” women haters that somehow gravitate to the comments section of this blog and I really feel sorry for you guys. Life is not a war between the sexes, relax and enjoy life already!
High regard? I wouldn’t go that far. I respect her intelligence and clarity of thought, but I think she overstated a lot of her ideas and misses the point in some places. In other words I think she says a lot of important things, but I wouldn’t call myself an Objectivist.
Fair enough but it wasn’t just Ayn Rand who talked about “self-control” because a huge chunk of philosophy was written on it going back thousands of years before her. 😀
You are a bit too smart and, just as importantly, a bit too questioning (the often but not always go together) to get sucked into a cult. And whatever dear old Ayn intended, her followers are rather cult-like today.
Some are.
The rest of us do not like being lumped in with vocal dogmatists.
You may find this amusing (via Jesse Walker). 😉
Laura is fond of reminding… anybody… that just because the Peter Popoffs and Pat Robertsons of this world make the most noise doesn’t mean that they are what Christianity is all about. She’s right, of course, but it does help that people know about Mother Teresa and a few other good guys. Unfortunately, however many reasonable Rand fans there may be out there, pretty much ALL any of the rest of us ever see or hear are the cultish Randroids.
I did find that amusing….
Yes, I know that the Randroids get the most press. However, they don’t get all the press, not by any stretch. They are merely the most noticed because they are the most obnoxious. They most assuredly do not speak for me.
That’s good to know, but maybe the rest of you need to speak up. Or maybe just wait until Rand goes out of style with jerks. But I feel I should warn you: God hasn’t gone out of style with jerks yet, and He’s been waiting a few thousand years.
I am speaking up. 🙂
Anyway, it is an unfortunate fact that any philosophical system can be coopted by jerks. Equally unfortunately, the media are far more interested in noisy people than those who merely live their beliefs.
E.g., I’m sure you know what Wikipedia is. You probably know who Jimmy Wales is. But did you know that he’s an Objectivist? You’re not likely to find that out from the media….
Yeah, you’re speaking up HERE, but maybe some of you guys (like Jimmy Wales) should go on TV and let the world know that Objectivists aren’t all cultish tax whiners and Market Fundamentalists.
Wikipedia
Yep, know what it is. It’s one of my search engines on my browser’s search bar.
Jimmy Wales
Didn’t know who he was, but looked him up on, um, Wikipedia. So he’s an Objectivist. Not sure why that’s significant. Nik Wallenda is a born-again Christian. But that isn’t what’s interesting about a man who walks across Niagara Falls on a wire.
Well, maybe Wales can afford to buy himself time on TV, but I rather doubt he has that sort of, um, ego. The rest of us have to rely on the media being willing to put us on and allowing us a fair chance to express our views. This rarely happens.
So, we have to do it the hard way, such as by blogging and commenting on others’ blogs.
I mentioned Wales because he doesn’t fit the Randroid stereotype.
He doesn’t need to buy time. He’s Jimmy Wales; he can get on TV just by saying he’s willing to talk to reporters. Maybe the next time somebody wants to talk about Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand, Wales can offer to talk about Rand and how Ryan is or is not a good example of her ideas.
You can find Wales on the air and in print, but not often talking about Objectivism or Rand. Reporters rarely call him up to ask about those things. They want to know about Wikipedia and his other projects.
My final word on this is that you’re entitled to have whatever beliefs you please.
However, you are responsible for your beliefs and no one else. Saying that the fault lies with non-Randroid Objectivists for not shoving their existence in your face does not make it their fault. If there is any fault, it is yours for having a belief that you haven’t tested adequately.
Well you may have something there. Then again, I did have this conversation with you, and didn’t insist that every Objectivist, you included, MUST BE a cultist. And you, while you didn’t “shove your existence in my face,” you did speak up and do something more than try to shout me down. So I think I can defend myself against the charge of not taking in new information, and anyone would be silly to accuse you of not taking the issue on.
Actually, we’ve both done fairly well, for two people starting out on opposite sides of an issue which matters greatly to at least one of us. Thank you for the discussion, and yeah, we can end it here.
No i don’t think you’re excusing it but the tilt of your article leaves room for that interpretation.
I’m sorry – I disagree that self-control is an “inane” concept. It’s fine to help create an environment to make it easier for men to function in – I’m all for it … but I’ll never use that environment as an excuse for me to behave badly. Others can – and it seems others wish to by reducing human behavior down to the level of orangutan – whatever.
I just believe there’s more to the equation than that.
I didn’t say self-control was inane; I said ideas like “rape culture” and “temptation into sin” are. I do have to insist that my article does NOT leave any room for that interpretation; however, people who dislike the fact that I contradict their pet dogmas will certainly try to shoehorn or crowbar it in even though it doesn’t.
What we tend to do in the modern world is talk about the therapeutic benefits of something when in the older world we would have talked about the spiritual benefits. Prostitution has both therapeutic benefits (it’s good for the mental and physical health of the participants) and spiritual benefits (it’s a way for women to help men be better people. It’s good for the human soul. It’s similar to attending church or temple in this way.).
Arguing for the spiritual benefits of prostitution in America circa 2012 is one of the hardest arguments to make. Despite the fact that I believe that having sex with prostitutes is good for the soul, if I made that argument there would be people wishing to bring back the Inquisition so I could be burned at the stake. It’s an incredibly radical argument. So we couch it in terms of harm reduction.
If I were to say, “I think young men should attend church, it will make them better people and less prone to harming others,” that would be about the least controversial thing I could ever say. If I expressed my firm belief that, “I think young men should see prostitutes, it will make them better people and less prone to harming others,” well, I wouldn’t get a very good reception most places. (Even though it’s the truth!)
The best thing we anti-prohibitionists have going for us, currently, is that it is also unfashionable to make the prohibitionist argument in spiritual terms. So, instead of saying, “The man who sees a prostitute, and the prostitute he sees will be damned to Hell for violating the commandment of God” modern prohibitionists say, “The man who sees a prostitute (and the prostitute he sees, usually) will become a moral degenerate, prone to all sorts of evil behavior.” (Neofeminists won’t even acknowledge their own spiritual beliefs here, of course, but they basically see prostitution as spiritually corrupting. It comes out in their writing, where the sex industry is always portrayed in luridly satanic terms and imagery.)
Hmmm … I’m lost here.
Because – I agree with you that ideas like “rape culture” and “temptation into sin” are inane … but somehow you’re thinking they’re dogmas I subscribe to?
They aren’t.
Where did I say that? I think you’re reading into my responses; try rereading the thread from the beginning and you’ll see what I mean.
I’m another who has never experienced an inability to control myself sexually, and who also (along with everyone contributing to this discussion) believes each person is responsible to control themselves — but with a qualification. Bear with me as I offer a parallel, if you please will.
I’m 58, and have been a (lifelong drug-free) bodybuilder since I was 16. One stark observation during my decades in gyms and among other dedicated iron-pushers is the substantial variations of men’s physical capacities. I’ve seen that men who are equally-dedicated, equally-consistent, equally-passionate, and equally-intelligently-training-and-eating-and-resting achieve substantially different progress after equal number of years — some of the men achieves significantly less strength and lean mass than the other.
Reason being genetics, of course. Some men are genetically capable of far more muscle, far more strength, far better proportions than others. I’ve seen some men on the low end of the genetics range who’ve trained seriously for ten years nevertheless have less strength and muscle than what a guy with average genetics BEGINS with.
Athletics makes it clear that all of us are born with genetics for “more or less”” along ranges for endurance, strength, flexibility, reflex, and work capacity. No man can (naturally) improve beyond his genetic ceilings. Since most of us don’t start at his genetic ceiling, most of us can improve from where we are, but once that ceiling is attained, we can progress no further (naturally). The men who are born with the highest potential are able to progress the farthest. And some, even well before they reach their ceilings, are already better than others.
I believe that, just as in that physiological, and just as in the intellectual (some are born with greater or at least potentially greater mental abilities); so it is in what we term “self-control”.
My observation is that humans are similarly born at points along a range of self-control — some have genetics giving them better self-control or the potential for better self control. Most can (and should!) progress toward their genetic ceiling with practice, same as can be done in bodybuilding for physical gains — but not everyone ends up with the same capacity for self-control.
So, although I’m one with an extremely high capacity for self-control, I see a need to not assume that “because I can do it, so can every other guy if he’d just set his mind to do it.”
Humans are animals — we are the “Naked Ape”. As far as “needs” are concerned, have a look at the lowest level of Maslov’s heirarchy of needs.
I think everyone knows what I really meant here – so many times people nit-pick at a word used here and there … or a phrase.
Let me rephrase that. I ASPIRE to be more than animal. 😀
And – I wouldn’t be the first to have this aspiration since this is practically the basis of all classic philosophy. No – it’s not science … then again, all science and no philosophy makes Jack a very dull boy. And also one with a chip on his shoulder most of the time.
After my now ex stopped caring about what I wanted, we’d often go for weeks without sex. But she had the nerve to complain that I wanted sex “every night”!
Well, duh. I made an issue of it because I hadn’t had sex with her for many nights… or if I had recently had, I had no idea when I’d get to again.
If that be creepiness….
This is easily the most novel idea I’ve come across since frequenting your blog, and I’m glad you decided to give it the full-article treatment. I only wish I could integrate something about this into the survey.
We live in a society where feminists and other modern liberals have a deep belief that a large number of men don’t seserve to have sex and should never be allowed to have sex. This matches up with some recent studies in genetics that show that only about 40% of all them men who have ever lived successfully reproduced.
Add this to the generalized hatred of straight white males in cities that are politically liberal and I think we are sitting on a time bomb.
We’re certainly sitting on a huge source of needless frustration, but it has been very rare historically that any frustrated group, no matter how justified, mounted a successful revolution. Fortunately for all of us, even the President’s blatant attempts to start a race/class war in America have failed utterly.
I sympathise strongly with those who want more freedom, and more sex too, but I don’t see any hope for them in America. The only advice I can give is: if you’re young enough that choosing a new career is still an option, pursue one that is in high enough demand that most countries in the world will let you immigrate to pursue it. Then at least, if conditions somewhere improve dramatically you can take advantage.
“I love your commonsense approach. Well, what would be commonsense if it was as prevalent as the term implies.”
I prefer to think that Maggie exhibits an “uncommon sense” approach.
A friend of mine had a phrase for men who aren’t getting enough and are getting weird: Toxic Sperm Buildup. It wasn’t until I became active at an embarrassingly late age that I could see how unrelaxed and repressed I’d been.
The illegality and stigma against prostitution does a huge disservice to men who are shy or have no “game”. Seeing a working girl could decrease their creepiness, increase their confidence and make them more able to find a “normal” relationship. Once again, we see Prohibition as something done to make sure that the powerful get more than the powerless.
The thing about desperation, in any context, is that it doesn’t have a very good effect on people. Read up sometime about what went on in Andersonville Prison during the Civil War…the “Raiders” in particular. While the Raider leaders were apparently always bad sorts, a lot of their followers were ordinary soldiers warped by constant hunger into monsters willing to follow any greater monster who would see to it that their bellies were filled. They robbed and victimized even men they’d served with side-by-side when they were free.
One bad side effect of involuntary celibacy is that it often leads to resentment and even outright hatred of the desired sex. And this applies to both genders. There are also lots and lots of ways to get one’s own back. A man who would never lay a violent hand on any woman might still take great pleasure in going out of his way to see to it that either he never employs a woman, or that any woman he does business with gets as bad a deal as he can get away with. Or a woman who resents men for ignoring her may never so much as speak harshly to a man, but in her capacity as, say, a Family Court judge, ensure that no father ever gets custody, no matter what.
Great post, Maggie. I linked it on Hooking Up Smart.
Maggie this stereotype is what is fed to the public from every TV and movie.
portraying men as dumb animals who think with their genitals, and this is wrong. We are not all like that, I feel sorry for you.
I’m very tired, I just saw my poor typing.
That human beings are animals is a “stereotype”? No, it’s a biological fact, and it’s far more often denied in our culture than “fed”. The people I feel sorry for are those who can’t accept that, and go on supporting laws and beliefs that cause harm because their stupid beliefs and “sending messages” are more important than the real lives and happiness of real, breathing men and women.
No one’s really denying that, Maggie. The association of humans as animals has two contexts.
(a) a scientific context and (b) a philosophical one. When two people argue from different “contexts” then a lot of hyperventilaton ensues – as now. I see both contexts and agree with both.
Rand would flatly (and probably rudely) disagree that man is not an animal in either the scientific or the philosophic context.
Her point wouldn’t be that man is a beast like any other but rather that man is a particular kind of beast with its specific biological needs–and those biological needs require him to reason and to be moral, if he is to live well.
(I agree with Rand on these points.)
“When a person is starving or eating only poor food he suffers from malnutrition, and when a man’s only sexual release is his own hand he begins to sink into a kind of sexual malnutrition that results first in increasingly extreme fantasies, then really off-the-wall and even grotesque fantasies, then creepiness, and finally (in some cases) proto-rapist behavior or actual rape. ”
” So, though most men won’t commit forcible rape no matter how frustrated they are, many men will (if frustrated enough) begin to suffer a kind of cloudiness in their moral vision that allows them to rationalize that taking advantage of drunk, incapacitated or even sleeping women is “not really” rape, just as a desperately-hungry man will steal to fill his belly.”
This is the what offends me and it is fed to the public in movies and TV, to imply all men become physically violent, or pedophiles, or rapist , or loose their moral compass without sex is the stereotype that speak of, the implication that if you are a heterosexual male and you are not trying to hump any breathing female that crosses your path then your are a potential deviant is outrageous and beyond offensive. All men are not dumb animals who think with their genitals, this dog may wag his tail; but the tail don’t wag the dog.
It’s very easy for you to say that if YOU don’t get that way, but I’ve seen the exact syndrome I describe in far too many men to ignore it. I don’t just make this shit up, nor do I swallow what the media hands out as you well know. If you find the truth “offensive”, I’m afraid I can’t help you any more than I can help the feminists who are offended by other facts about human sexuality. The world is the world, and it isn’t always as we would like it to be.
It could well be that both sides of this are right. After all, your “sample” is biased, composed mainly of men who sought out hookers. The men on the other side, those who don’t find themselves frustrated into irrationality, would seem less likely to seek out a hooker, so maybe you simply didn’t see the proportions that are extant in the full population.
Good try, but no; I noticed that with dates, boyfriends and male friends years before I became a hooker.
I live in a city where many of the women loathe my very existence. The hatred radiates from them if I merely say “Hello”. I’ve given up a couple of hobbies because of the incredibly hostile environments they have created. But since I’m a guy, all I can do is “suck it up”. Nobody gives a damn about the abuse that I’m constantly subjected to. I’m starting to think that I need to become so terrifying that women will run screaming if I do so much as glance at them.
Yeah, I’m tired of the bullshit. And I’m really sick and tired of the new “sexual harrassment” policies that a number of different groups are putting into place for conferences where just stepping onto an elevator can get me thrown out of the conference.
Other than your opinion, can you list a, or many sexuality studies that show this.
In the column I link several studies which show that rates of rape and sexual assault decrease where porn and prostitution are legally available.
My sense of things is that there are sizeable numbers of men who fit both sides; some men get frustrated enough that they end up erratic and others have no such trouble. I myself have been of both kinds, at different times in my life. Sounds like a research project to me; I won’t be convinced either way without more solid evidence. Know any grad students with time on their hands? 🙂
Exactly, solid evidence !
I never thought i would ever encounter this early in my lifetime anyone who had nearly the exact same philosophies on the difference of real moral and social criminalization. When I pondered once why something should really be criminal, is when what you were doing involves harming an unwilling individual in some way it should be criminal, and only that. So it also had me wondering; prostitution, weed, gambling etc should be more decriminalized since the only people that can be harmed in it do it voluntarily, and there are very few if any people that can be hurt by prostitution voluntarily, aside from social judgement and criminalization. And it is that judgement by society that is the real moral wrong in the entire ordeal, and judgement this radical should really be tossed aside.
Have you considered writing or already wrote a book? if so email me. if not, you should. Thank you for your words.
May Your Spirit Burn Brighter with Every Truth:
~Cooper
I agree with Maggie on many things. On some things we disagree, and on a few I’m still making up my mind.
On the subject of harm reduction we are in lockstep. I doubt there’s any daylight to be found between us.
Just now back from several days on muscle relaxants.
None of us are perfect, or as my friend the seminary student said, the one guy who was got hung on a cross for his temerity. We cannot say what we would do under every circumstance until we are put in that circumstance. I am certain that if you had asked future German soldiers in 1930 if they could imagine killing captives or raping women, they would have replied with a resounding, “Nein!”
I think that Captain Kirk in one of the Star Trek episodes was correct: the real sign of a civilized man is that he promises himself in the morning, “I am not going to kill,today,” and then does everything in his power to live up to that promise to himself. I think that censors prevented the addition of rape to that promise to one’s self, and dramatic impact excluded a whole list of other crimes.
As to the Objectivists, when Rand was alive, they marched in lock step with her, or they were kicked out. There are still Randites who hold that belief. They make Marxist-Leninists appear flexible in comparison.
I’m also sure that most participants in the Milgrim experiment, if asked beforehand if they would electrically torture a person to death because a man in a white coat told them to, would have said “No!” just as loudly.
Harm reduction is a good model. If we could include in that instruction from an early age that sometimes, authorities should not be obeyed, it would help. We need fewer parents saying, “I don’t care if the teacher told you to go stand on your head; you do what you’re told!”
richard girard wrote:
As to the Objectivists, when Rand was alive, they marched in lock step with her, or they were kicked out.
Here’s a multi-part essay that addresses that particular issue, among others.
They make Marxist-Leninists appear flexible in comparison.
Yet, in all their personal inflexibility, they’ve never killed people in job lots and have always maintained that interpersonal relationships should conform to the standard of mutual consent to mutual gain. I think that the comparison is on the far side of hyperbolic.
In terms of “parrty discipline,” the Objectivists matched anything the Marxist-Leninists did while Rand was alive EXCEPT murder. And since they have never held supreme political power anywhere-thank God in all 9 billion of his aspects-we do not know what would happen if they attained that power.
Richard,
Really? So they indulged in forcible starvation? Torture? Imprisonment with or without due process? Extortion? Strong armed robbery? Assault with intent?
I labeled your rhetoric as hyperbolic on the odd chance that you might have been indulging in a figure of speech. Apparently not.
Forcible starvation=murder or attempted murder
Torture=attempted murder or murder
Imprisonment with or without due process=certainly Rand’s relationship with Branden was a form of involuntary servitude, and as hypocritical as the rest of her life, up to and including her accepting Social Security and Medicare after she developed lung cancer..
Extortion=ditto
Strong armed robbery=all Randites think any form of taxation is “strong arm robbery, so that is not a convincing point.”
Assault with intent. Assault with intent to what? Rape?. See Rand-Branden relationship in its later stages. Murder? Comes under the heading of murder in my mind. If the intent is there, failure is happenstance, not intent, and still comes under the broad heading of murder.
I may have waxed somewhat hyperbolic, but Ayn Rand and the Objectivist philosophy represents almost everything that is currently wrong with this country.
DNFTT.
*plonk*
“Do Not Feed The Trolls,” heh? I should have expected that from someone who is so enamored of a woman’s philosophy, which has as one of its primary precepts the idea of “A = A,” something that Kant disproved in the introduction of the Critique of Pure Reason, and which Aristotle would have explained to her she was badly misusing anyway.
I don’t know if I agree with you on this one. You say that women have mellower sexual urges than men, but I personally think, that as a woman, my sexual urges have been just as strong as that of a man’s (I say have been because after a certain surgery, my libido was unfortunately curtailed due to a rebalance of hormones in my body). However, even at the strongest, even when I was so horny I couldn’t stand it, I was able to restrict myself to appropriate outlets through self-control.
Basically, this is a moral question where someone is an adult should have the morals to dismiss a basic and primitive sex drive in order to avoid commiting a crime. To refuse to do so on the basis of “but my urges were so great I couldn’t think straight, and therefore had to take advantage of an impaired woman” is not only infantile, but a crime. Hell, it’s almost a form of victim blaming, since instead of blaming the woman that was raped, he’s blaming the whole female race as a whole for not putting out, driving him to rape or molest the first woman who physically couldn’t refuse.
While I do believe that prostitution should be decriminalized so that those men and women who need sexual outlets but can’t get them for some reason, I also believe that we should expect better self-restraint and decorum from our fellow man.
I underestimate the ability some people have to completely ignore and misunderstand even the most basic of laid out arguments. Maggie is not condoning rape not justifying its existence. She is simply explaining the reality of the male sex drive and its implications good of bad. Most men don’t rape just like most people don’t kill, however when it does happen its important to understand the mechanics behind such crimes.
The male sex drive can be a powerful force for innovation and invention but also disaterous if mislead and misdirected. This is not a condemndation of men as thoughtless animals, women are just as guilty of being slaves to their biology hence “baby rabbies”and menstration. As a man I’d rather have a woman like Maggie who understands my sex drive and biology while offering to help as opposed to neofeminist and traditionalist who would rather deny me my right to feel and act like a man.
I agree with the general thrust of Maggie’s comments here. I would like to address one point in particular, however, and that is the redefining of rape which is getting to be a serious problem. See attatched essay.
RAPE REDEFINED
Rape once had a very specific – and precise – definition. It was force or the threat of force to bully a woman into sexual intercourse. Now rape is literally anything a woman wants it to be. Under the old standard, she had to be forcibly resisting at every point for the act to be rape. If she acquiesced at any point it was seduction, not rape. Now, we have statutes like the one in New Jersey where, if a woman says “Stop!” even after the man is already inside her, the man has exactly five seconds to withdraw or it is “rape”. All this is purely insane.
Feminists are not nearly as interested in preventing rape as they are at intimidating men in the bedroom. Many states have now defined rape as not merely penile penetration but digital or any other form of penetration. Thus, if you are engaged in a heavy petting party and you insert your finger into her vagina to warm her up for the main event that can now be considered “rape”. Feminists have induced certain states, like Washington State, to rule that silence is not consent. The man must get affirmative verbal consent for everything he does in the bedroom. Otherwise, the woman may afterwards claim that she did not consent, her silence and acquiescence notwithstanding.
Rape is also defined statutorily as sex with minors below a certain age, notwithstanding that in the United States of 1850 the legal age of sexual intercourse in every state but one was 10-12 years (the exception was the state of Delaware where the age of consent was 7). Brain impaired females are also deemed not to be capable of consenting to sex – even in situations where the female clearly wants to engage in sex and clearly knows what she is doing. Other states, like Oklahoma, have ruled that even one or two beers impair the capacity to give consent.
But these are merely the tip of the iceberg as rape is being redefined to suit women. The burden of proof is being reversed. Instead of the woman having to prove that the man raped her; it is now the man who must prove that he did not. Sir Matthew Hale’s wise admonition that “rape is a crime easily alleged be the defendant ever so innocent” has been dropped from the formal charge to the jury. The defendant’s right to challenge the credibility of his accuser is being steadily undermined by excluding the sexual history of the accuser. This may be justifiable where in cases where a woman is attacked in a parking lot. But in cases where a woman and a man have a history of being intimate the exclusion of the sexual history may greatly inhibit undermining her credibility.
“Rape”, in short, is becoming an all-out assault on the male sex drive. Worse than the legal assault, however, is the reorienting of the public mind. People have been brainwashed into thinking that women do not lie about rape. Constantly one hears Susan Brown miller’s bogus “only two percent of rape reports are false” statistic. (She simply lied and made it up out of thin air.) Women lie about rape the same way they lie about everything else. It is a known fact that 80% of domestic violence accusations made by women are false, for example. Yet the public has been convinced that men should be convicted of rape based on the believability of a woman’s word.
Real rapes do occur, of course, and should be punished. But it is time to return to real definitions of a crime and real protections of due process. These are sadly lacking in today’s hysterical atmosphere.
Dude, you need to stop trying to spam my blog with this shit. I let you post it once, but I just deleted three more screeds; if you do it once more I’ll delete this one as well. This is my blog, not yours; if you want to write endlessly on the same topic I suggest you get your own rather than trying to live as a parasite on mine.
My name is not “Dude”. Why do you write a blog and invite comments directly on point and then delete them? Or are you so afraid of learned commentary that you run from it in terror rather than trying to understand it?
I suspect that you may find my general intellectual perspective disturbing. Your perspective is your responsibility. But I know a great deal on many subjects – and both you and your readers would do well to learn from it. Instead you prefer to stick your brain up your courtesan cunt hole in pious indignation.
I believe the quote goes something like “Nuke it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure”.
Go for it Maggie!
When you post the same thing on multiple threads it is called SPAM. Those of us who are subscribed to the comment feed here saw it no less than three times.
I suspect that you may find my general intellectual perspective disturbing….But I know a great deal on many subjects – and both you and your readers would do well to learn from it.
We would “do well” to learn from someone who can’t master basic Internet etiquette?
Someone sounds a bit too pleased with themselves. Take yourself down a peg, Johnny.
Instead you prefer to stick your brain up your courtesan cunt hole in pious indignation.
Resist the temptation to feed the trolls. Resist. Resist.
I call your attention to the clearly-posted House Rules.
Goodbye.
I don’t have a blog of my own, but if I did, I wouldn’t put up with spamming on it.
I know you don’t need my approval for ejecting this spamster, Maggie, but you’ve certainly got my approval for doing so.
I may be but a fool to your intellectual titan, good sir, but at least I know that Susan Brownmiller’s surname is one word, not two.
Can we define creepy here?
My definition of creep is the type such as the handful of men who would hit on pokey lil old me walking home from the bus stop when I was in middle school and high school. I don’t care if those dudes were frustrated. They saw in me someone they might take advantage of. Fuck them.
Valley, if somebody had fucked them, they wouldn’t have been frustrated.
And yeah, hitting on middle school kids (unless you’re a middle school kid yourself, of course) is pretty creepy.
I’m waiting for Maggie’s belief to reach society, that under sexed or celibate males are dangerous, and we see the first arrest as a potential sex offender.
1) It’s not a “belief”, it’s an observation, and nobody said all of them are dangerous.
2) If you think I’m advocating “precrime” or abrogation of due process, you must not have read many of my essays.
3) If this is a “joke”, it’s in extremely poor taste.
And Augustine, in spite of his many philosophical faults, knew a thing or two about sex and the need for it, especially as the more morally restrictive Christianity of Paul and Constantine began to dominate the decaying Roman Empire. Denying one’s sexuality became the rule for everyone except the nobility, who were already beginning to institute what would be called “la droit de seigneur,” in the Western provinces.