“Men’s needs”

[Icantevenbegin]

NC for this as it’s controversial, and TW for reference to sex.
I watched this reel yesterday and was horrified by the question asked, by a man, about how the Council was proposing to ensure that 600 men’s “sexual needs” were managed.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/189rk7Szaa/?mibextid=wwXIfr
I mean, I suppose it was very (to a man) delicately put, but what appalled me was that nobody seemed to be pointing out that the word “needs” indicates a requirement/entitlement for men to have their desires/urges fulfilled by someone else.
I asked my DP if he could see what was wrong with the question, but he couldn’t see past the fact that the man was bringing up a valid point, in that 600 extra men might cause problems in a small town.
He simply couldn’t understand why I was so appalled at the overall casual acceptance of the term “men’s sexual needs” at all.
So, MN, please tell me one way or the other:
YABU - men do have a right to have their “needs” fulfilled
YANBU - they are “urges/desires” and there should not be any rights invoked for these

I think your getting yourself worked up over the wrong thing tbh. I get what the man was asking and the point he was making. Frankly I can't concern myself round the language used here but I am concerned about undocumented men coming from countries with not one iota of respect for women being bused into communities in the dead of night and then basically allowed free reign to roam communities. It's disgusting and frankly they should be locked up until they are immediately deported. How many woman will need to be raped and murdered before something serious is actually done about these men coming her illegally

Are you hoping for chemical castration for all men? Or just the immigrant males?

He phrased it very badly, but it seems unlikely that he was genuinely concerned about the sexual frustration of these poor men, and more concerned about local women. Some of these men come from parts of the world where premarital sex is a disgrace for women and young women's families don't let them socialise with men etc - then they come to the UK and think that all Western women are easy - and they try it on and sometimes become aggressive (or violent) when turned down.

No, sex is never a need, but young men do have very strong sex drives, stronger than women, and if they're put in an environment where they have little chance of forming consensual relationships (because who wants to date a penniless homeless asylum seeker?), it does very often lead to frustration and aggression and antisocial behaviour of various kinds. 600 young men with no partners and no jobs and nothing to do but hang out together, and probably drink, behave very differently from 600 men with stuff to do all day and partners to go home to (who would ditch them if they acted like yobs), and a purpose in life. Sexual frustration isn't the only reason men like these can cause problems, but it's part of it. It's not an excuse, ever, but it is a reason.

History shows that giant gender imbalances in societies or communities lead to social problems. Women (and the consequence of relationships with women, children) have a civilising influence on men. Criminals are most often young, male - and single. Warehousing hundreds of young men with no women and nothing to occupy their time is asking for trouble.

I think you are overinterpreting this a little. I think the word "need" is used instead of "desire" or "want" because neither of these words emphasise the point he is trying to make. And that is strength of the male sex drive. He isn't saying this gives men the right to sex - just that if you put any 600 men somewhere, they will go looking and some of them will be dangerous on that account. Especially since we are very sexually liberal

The men in the town who are expressing their thinly veiled concerns (racism) are as much of a risk to women. Will they be out next weekend supporting women's rights and criticising white sexual predators? Didn't think so. They don't give a shit about women's safety from sexual predation.

Please explain clearly what you're asking me here.

These men who are concerned about the sexual needs of illegal immigrants should get together and organise a rota, they can take it in turns to to wank them off/suck them off.
That should do the job.

chemical castration is too far, but young soldiers used to be said to have their tea laced with bromide to cope with exactly this

Just the ones with “needs” that require the council to manage.

Do men really have stronger sex drives?
Or is it more that men are able to physically dominate women and therefore women tend to be afraid of men.
I wonder how strong the male sex drive would be if women could easily beat them in a fight.

I'm receiving a lot of stuff on Facebook lately from "tradwives", "Christian wives" etc, based in the US, who advocate marital rape among other things that belong in the dark ages. Either they are weirdos trying to get attention or it's deeply worrying that this type of thing is gaining ground. Even more so if it's women calling for it.

I think you're wildly misinterpreting this comment OP. It was a "goady" or "tongue in cheek" reference to the fact that an influx 600 young men could very well lead to increased sexual harrassment and/or rape in the community. The bloke wasn't genuinely asking if there would be government provision for them to have a shag!

It normalises the idea that men need sex with women and that it will therefore inevitably cause problem

it doesn’t matter to me what their sex drive is , they can mange that themselves , they are no more animas than woman are

I hate the "British men rape too" trope. Sure, some do and that's a problem. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned by thousand of unoccupied, damaged men from very different cultures being forced on our communities. We don't want them. They should all be deported. Boats should be turned back regardless.

Even a need creates no concomitant obligation in anyone else to meet that need.

See also the phrase ‘I deserve’. ‘Being a good boy’ does not equal deserving treats - because being good creates no obligation in others to reward you.

The ‘meeting needs’ idea is extraordinarily self-infantilising on the part of the man making the argument. Are these men autonomous adults who can make their own way in life? Or are they moral dependants who rely on the state to meet their basic needs, as they have no agency of their own?

When you extend the idea the other way - the idea that the existing population of men is ‘having their needs met’ through a suitable provision of women - you begin to see why radical feminists have sometimes argued that marriage is a form of legalised prostitution.

Or to put it another way, to the man making this argument: have a wank love.

EVERY country is rapey - some just use their law to legitimise it and some use it to make the barrier to prosecution almost impossible. You happen to live in the latter. Don’t use that marginal luck as a smokescreen for racism.

This stuff is being aggressively funded by the far right and it’s gaining so much traction. It’s really depressing.

Oh for goodness sake, can you not see this for what it is? Do you think the person asking the question is genuinely interested or are they stirring up anger using thinly veiled racism to generate click bait headlines.

Really? You genuinely believe cultural attitudes around women have no effect on offending rates?

The normalisation of this concept was what horrified me, aside from the obvious racism veiled in concern for women, as a PP pointed out…
Really? It's the semantics which horrified you? Not the fact that 600 men, of any ethnicity, will have sexual desires that could cause actual harm to people (women, men, and even the immigrants themselves)? Jesus Fucking Christ!

It's racism dressed up as concern. The implication being they will rape women.

I'm sure there's probably already well over 600 men living in the town and they seem to manage their "needs" just fine.

all humans ca harm others
there isn’t a fundamental reason why men MUST harm women

I mean... it surely makes sense evolutionarily speaking that men have higher sex drives, as they have the potential to impregnate women pretty much constantly, whereas women can only get pregnant in one bit of their cycle, and are then put of action for at least 9 months. Women being stronger might deter men from acting on their desires, but I don't see why it would deter them from having those desires.

My initial reaction was 'of course YANBU - sex is not a need', but other posters have a point. If what was really meant was 'These men will feel they have needs. What do we do about the potential consequences of that?', then it's an understandable question, however clumsily phrased.