“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

The issue with the word "needs" is that it implies its something they are entitled to, that they couldn't possibly be expected to go without. Something they eserve to have provided for them.

Obviously what the man is implying is that by introducing 600 men into an area you are increasing the risk of all the total of men raping women. In almost all systems you need to be careful to balance the males and females of a species. I have kept a few animals for breeding in my time, in most breeding groups you need far fewer males than females. Otherwise the males will gang rape and kill females. There aren't enough women to satisfy the men safely. The roosters don't care that the hen are loosing their feathers. The drakes don't care they're drowning the ducks. The men

At the end of the day it's a valid question. You can't just tell men not to rape women so what are you going to do to lower the risks.

OP, I think the reason people didn’t react is not because they think men’s sexual arousal causes ‘needs’ that must be met, but because they were glad he’d raised this important point, about the risk it causes to women and children.

It’s his phrasing that caught you out. He used a euphemism, which everyone there understood.

So the same issue applies to army barracks?

@LeftieRightsHoarder you’re right - he used it as a euphemism.

But other offensive euphemisms have been roundly banned, which has led to a general shift in language, followed by attitudes, about all sorts of things.

Isn’t it time that we called out the mis-statement that men have “needs”, rather than “wants/desires/urges”, as the former implies an entitlement that is no longer allowed in law?

I was trying to explain and discuss this anomaly, rather than get into a discussion about the problems with unfettered illegal immigration of young men into the country, to get people to change their language around this.

It’s clearly still a widely-held view, that men’s desires usurp consent, and I felt that the acceptance of this statement highlighted that.

If more people realised that the phrase “men’s needs” indicates a higher importance than “men’s desires“, they might stop using it, and give more of a clear signal that an urge or desire for sex is not a right that any man has, over any other person to provide it.

In towns with army barracks nearby, there will usually be degrees of violence between soldiers and local males competing for female attention.

Humans are one step removed from chimps. If you want to understand the evolutionary factors that drive the human male psyche, simply watch a nature programme that observes chimp behaviours. We fool ourselves that we're 'civilised', but we're not; that's merely a thin veneer (just look at the statistics).

It’s clearly still a widely-held view, that men’s desires usurp consent

Can you provide statistical evidence, please, that it's a "widely-held view" that "men's desires usurp consent"?

@Icantevenbegin so you DO know what he was trying to say

It was not an easy situation to be in and he picked the wrong word

Do you really need to start an entire thread about that? He might also have been trying to take the piss out of the way some people think of these things. We don't know.

But you've literally picked one word out of what he has said, in a very difficult situation where he had to think really carefully about his phrasing in order to avoid being thrown out, or to avoid all the usual accusations, and this is all on film so it's going to affect his work and his social circle.

It just sounds incredibly petty to me. I have lived near one of these hotels. I thank the man for turning up to the meeting and for making the point.

We have been put in a position where we have to work really hard on our phrasing, even in these horrible situations

Is this really the time to pick at someone for his infraction? I agree he could have used a different word. But as I said, the important thing is he raised the issue in the first place.

If you are amazingly eloquent and can do a better job, then I hope you are supporting people with similar concerns. We are all over the country.

A young female soldier took her own life recently following sexual assault by a male soldier, which was dismissed when she tried to raise it with her seniors.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mky220nrdo

No, I can’t. I was concerned that the man who said it got a laugh and applause. That indicated to me that this view was widely held by the rest of the people in that meeting - which was a meeting protesting about 600 migrant men being housed nearby.

It’s the same kind of acceptance laugh and applause that Bernard Manning used to get when he told his awful jokes that wouldn’t be tolerated nowadays.

Are you able to find me a report that disproves the (also now widely-held) view that the language used around topics can influence people into believing the statement made (I.e. in this case that men have genuine needs, rather than wants or urges or desires, to help themselves to sex)? That’s the point I was making…

Seriously? You're saying that it's a widely-held view that a man's desire is more important than any need for him to gain consent?

@EmeraldRoulette yes I do know what he was saying, and I get the point!

However, his choice of words made me wonder how many people think that men have “needs” (need being a higher priority than “wants” Etc.) and whether using the words that actually describe what men feel (want, urge, desire) might lead to a different understanding generally, given that there is no requirement for anyone to satisfy their craving when it isn’t “necessary”.

I was trying to de-normalise the phrase by removing the toxic connotations of the word “needs” in general discussion around this topic, that’s all…. As well as point out that some well-known phrases/euphemisms can be quite damaging.

Anyhoo - I am glad that people are engaging with the discussion - thank you for your comment.

Oh dear. Sorry I’m making this so difficult.

No. I’m saying that by describing men’s sexual feelings as a need, rather than an urge, desire or want, we elevate the importance of it.

By changing the phrase to indicate a lesser importance, we could normalise the understanding that men’s sexual urges are not so important that they trump consent.

It’s really just that, and I know it’s a tiny point, but language can help…

Yes. Language. Absolutely.

Read back your own posts.

@Icantevenbegin are you aware that there have been cases where local authorities/social care have been involved in situations asking for funding for men with special needs to access sex workers?

I don't want to presume what this chap is thinking, but there is always a possibility that his use of the term "needs" was linked to that.

many things are very meta these days.

I also heard that similar things were happening in Deepcut Barracks. The female recruits were seen as property of the officers

Er yeah actually. And boys only schools/childrens homes and men's prisons. It's not exactly the same though is it. in those places men are mostly assaulting other men. In the environment talked about, there are women in the community, just alot more men. That puts the women at risk from the men.

And yes, female soldiers do get assaulted by their male counterparts and superiors.

One we should revoke.

I totally understand what you are getting at
And actually think that a large proportion of certain groups of males do believe their needs trump consent
And that is worrying for our society,our future and present
However in this situation,I believe the man was trying to tacfully highlight women's safety as best he could..well that was how I interpreted his comment..I thought he was saying..how will women and girls be safe .

In certain groups ..I'd agree they believe it is yes

Link does not work for me.

To add though. Sex is NOT a need.

Nobody has ever died or even suffered greatly due to lack of sex.

What a batshit crazy man. Although they were talking about men seeking asylum as opposed to illegal immigrants.

He didn't mean "needs". It was racism couched as concern. When he said 'needs' he was actually implying 'rampant urges'.
So you are taking the use of the word too literally, OP.

Yes, because gay men are renowned for their low sex drives.

Basically this. I think OP is focusing on the wrong part of the story.

I also am pretty sure the man asking the question does not care about women in the slightest. It’s a Trojan Horse ‘concern.’