Should I be cross if DH went to lap dancing club?

[ActingNormal]

...and spent £60 on private dances (we aren't poor and he doesn't spend money on much that is frivolous).

Other people seem to think I should be cross but I can't see it. Am I being a mug? Is it a sign of disrespect?

He got a bit of female attention outside the marriage. He was consenting. They were consenting. I knew he was going there. There doesn't seem like there is a risk of him forming a relationship with the women but if a woman behaved that way with him in a regular nightclub that seems more of a threat to me.

He came home horny as hell and seemed like he had a good break from the stress of his job.

Just because some men do it doesn't mean all men do.

Many strippers would say they are not in a vulnerable situation though.

Dittany you know for a fact that all men who frequent lapdancing clubs want the girls to be vulnerable to make themselves feel superior?

Are you a mind reader?

I did read the stats, however you could just as easily read them and say'there were 83 rapes in 2000 but only 47 in 2003'.

Lies, damned lies etc.

Divastrop: it's the idea that a woman who works as a stripper, lap dancer or other sex worker must be disgusted by the fact that her customers feel sexually aroused by the sight of her body and couldn't possibly feel any other way (such as flattered, content that the customer is pleased and might tip more, or simply indifferent to the customer's feelings beyond professional politeness).

Dittany: is there any aspect of male sexual desire or sexual behaviour that you don't find (or suggest that all women must find) disgusting and threatening?

Solidgoldbrass says "is there any aspect of male sexual desire or sexual behaviour that you don't find (or suggest that all women must find) disgusting and threatening?"

You are attempting a clunky sleight of hand.

Of course it is not male sexuality with which I (and I imagine Dittany) have a problem.

My problem is with the fact that men, and some women, deny that the unequal socioeconomic relationships between men and women are - predictably - reproduced (or even exacerbated) in the arena of sexuality.

The reason that men pay women to have sex, or simulate sexual desire, is not because their sexuality is more 'visual' or whatever.

It's because they have more economic power. They can. So some of them do.

Not what I want for me, or for any of us, whether performers or partners.

Don't some women pay men for sexual services as well, because they can?

and the sleight of hand that I mention above is one which has been a key weapon in the arsenal against any women who don't go with the flow, re buying sex. 'lezzer', 'frigid', 'neurotic' etc.

It's worth noting that there is no logical link between a sexually liberated society (ie one that is at ease with sexuality and its expression), and the extent to which men pay for sex or the simulation of it.

the 19c was the century of prostitution, for example. (precisely because women were very limited in the areas in which they could work)

Lap-dancing/porn/prostitution tries hard to conflate itself with sex and sexuality. Its defenders argue that those who are offended by it are offended by sexuality itself. That those who don't think that the sex industry is 'liberated' are opposed to a liberated sexuality.

But in fact the sex industry is about commerce. Not sexuality.

ActingNormal. Yes, in approximately 1/1000000 of the commercial sexual transactions in the world, women are the purchasers.

If the figure were twenty times that, or twenty thousand times, it wouldn't change anything.

Onebatmother, what is your take on poor African communities where wealthy (comparatively) middle-aged Western women go and sleep with the young men in exchange for buying them things? I will try and find a link.

Historically, every dominant force in society has successfully persuaded some members of the dominated class to enforce its ideology.

In other words, they don't do their own shitwork, because there are always anxious or stupid flag-wavers to do it for them.

niceychops - can i refer you to my previous post re statistics?

Sorry OBM - which post?

and in any case, the fact that you are describing a sitch in which the 'first world' fucks the 'developing world' quite proves my point about the sex industry being about commerce and power.

i say the sex industry, because, despite what the flag-wavers need to hear, lap-dancing is precisely that.

this one, niceychops

By onebatmother on Thu 07-Aug-08 20:57:04
ActingNormal. Yes, in approximately 1/1000000 of the commercial sexual transactions in the world, women are the purchasers.

If the figure were twenty times that, or twenty thousand times, it wouldn't change anything.

Contact the poster See this person's profile Contact mumsnet about this post

OBM: my main problem with the opponents of the sex industry is that they fail to see that prhohibition and criminalisation (and the endless stigmatizing of female sex workers as stupid, deluded, victims or immoral) do nothing to fix the wider problems of exploitation of the powerless by the powerful which are not and never have been confined to commercial sex.
Forcing the industry back underground means that only the most desperate women will choose sex work (or be forced into it) and will have little or no recourse to help when they are exploited or assaulted. Women who might have voluntarily opted for sex work because it's more money for shorter hours than many other jobs that fit round childcare or do not demand lots of qualifications, and because they find the idea of sex work not exactly unbearable, will have one less money-earning option available to them. It will also make life a little more miserable for those who pay for sex because, for a variety of reasons, they have difficulty in finding willing sexual partners. (By which I do not mean 'woman-hating psychos' but men who are older, physically unattractive, socially inept, or working very long hours in high-pressure jobs, men whose female partners cannot or will not engage in sex with them but who they do not wish to leave). But I suppose that doesn't matter because they are only horrible dirty lustful men who should have more control over their base urges.
In an ideal world, no one should have to work in a job they hate, or be abused by their clients, or ripped off by their employers, but no one has yet come up with a convincing reason why the exchange of sex for cash between willing adults is in itself such a dreadful thing that it shouldn't be allowed.

I haven't suggested that we prohibit the sex industry, solidgoldbrass: simply that we don't dress it up as anything other than that which it is: an industry. And that we don't celebrate it as a sign of liberated sexuality.

The vast majority of consumers are not older, physically unattractive or socially inept. They are average men who don't have a problem paying for a person to be penetrated and/or pretend to be enjoying sex (or pre-sex) with them.

Your suggestion that men who work very long hours in high-pressure jobs should not be subject to the same standards of humanity as the rest of us makes me snort.

Likewise those whose female partners can't or won't etc.

though further to the idea of prohibition:
"they fail to see that prhohibition and criminalisation (and the endless stigmatizing of female sex workers as stupid, deluded, victims or immoral) do nothing to fix the wider problems of exploitation of the powerless by the powerful which are not and never have been confined to commercial sex."

Perhaps it would. Perhaps it wouldn't. It's quite possible that the existence of the sex industry reinforces other sociosexual inequalities. It seems very likely that they are interconnected, and perpetuate each other. There's a strong argument that breaking a part of this cycle will improve matters.

In any case, even if it did nothing for the other problems which litter the power relations betw men and women, it would attempt to prevent men from buying women.

just as the minimum wage attempts to prevent humans from being effectively economically enslaved.

clink!

waves at madamez (if indeed it is she)
seconded re ownership/renting
well put
off to bed