Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

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

860 replies

ActingNormal · 03/08/2008 21:49

...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.

OP posts:
divastrop · 10/08/2008 20:57

very long,yes,but very good also

i am quite amazed how this debate has moved on.talking about men admiring beauty?!i really cant see what that has to do with porn/lapdancing etc.and i think erotic art is a world away from porn,the sort of porn ive seen is more degrading than erotic.

ive explained lap dancing clubs to my dd1.i have told her all about how women are seen as inferior in our society and this is perpetuated by the media and the sex industry telling women they have to look a certain way so they are sexually attractive as that is all women are good for.i had to explain porn to her when she and her friends found a mag in the back street.

southeastastra · 10/08/2008 20:57

only read op, but ew bin him

ActingNormal · 10/08/2008 20:59

Can anyone post a link to statistics for sex crimes over time to see whether they have increased at the same time as access to porn and sexual services has increased (it's taking me ages to find what I'm looking for on the web).

If sex crimes have increased how much of it do people think is down to increased reporting?

How much do people think the sex industry encouraging objectification of women can be held responsible for an increase in sex crime? If it IS responsible then I could see why supporting the sex industry by allowing DH to take part in it could be morally irresponsible and now this is concerning me a lot. I wasn't thinking of the wider implications for society when I wrote the OP, I was just thinking about my immediate relationship and whether I should feel it was being threatened.

I don't know why I didn't think about this before when a relative of mine is in prison for sexual assault! He has pointed to exposure to porn at a young age as being a factor in encouraging his objectification of women and then later the frequent use of porn and internet porn by his colleagues as a release from the stresses of the job and they encouraged him to look at it as well. It seemed to deepen his sexual obsessions and he admitted that when he committed his crimes he didn't see the women (all strangers) as somebody's sister, mother, wife, daughter, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do what he did.

Although his use of porn was a large influence and intensified his urges, it wasn't the cause of his suppressed rage which he inflicted on the women. The cause was his difficult childhood including sexual abuse he suffered himself. I really don't know whether I think he wouldn't have done it if there was no porn involved or not. The rage would have come out somehow at some time I am sure of that. I think I would blame bad parenting and bad child protection much more than the sex industry for what he has done. In fact I am always reading that a lot of people who commit sex crimes have had sex crimes committed against them in the past and that this is the main reason they carry it on.

I never thought I was going to start thinking about it this deeply when I wrote the OP!

OP posts:
ActingNormal · 10/08/2008 21:29

Although not all men are like my relative - I mean a man with a problematic background might be influenced by the sex industry to commit crimes but a 'normal' man could use porn and lapdancing clubs and not be incited to attack women. So the sex industry may make men who are at risk of offending, more at risk of offending, but not have any effect on 'normal' men.

OP posts:
PinkTulips · 10/08/2008 21:39

jellybeans.... it's abit daft to presume that all strippers have had plastic surgery in order to do the job i only worked with about 6/7 women who had had boob jobs and i worked with over 50 in total.... most of us were happy with what nature saw fit to give us.

to those of you still labouring the 'what did men do before pornography' debate.... i'm confused as you seem to have the comcept a bit back to front.

ponography has come about because men tend to be very easily stimulated via visual cues. they don't rely on pornography to have sex fgs, or course they don't need a pron mag to get an erection but when a man becomes aroused it is often as a result of a visual cue like the sight of a woman's curves (clothed or unclothed) or the sight of their partner undressing for them (not for every man every time MrLizinthstick, there are exceptions to everything)

prostitutes in practically every culture throughout the ages have known this and have known to flaunt their wares with low necklines and, if permissable in their society, legs on show as it serves to arouse the potential customer and encourage him to hire her.

men don't rely on porn.... porn does however rely on mens' natural urge to see women flaunting their bodies.

and as for the whole 'what is beauty' arguement... beauty is curves and flesh and a natural body. a good smile and happy eyes.... not an anorexic overly made up model in uncomfortable clothes pouting for the camera a la vogue.

for the record, i'd prefer to see a naked woman than a naked man any day of the week! women have a nice soft form that pleases the eye (even when it's in a size that vogue wouldn't even admit exists)

men for all their many many benefits do not have paticularily beautiful bodies. like actingnormally, an attractive man to me is a strong, hairy, male specimen with a good personality..... but the sight of his cock is never going to arouse me

PinkTulips · 10/08/2008 21:45

although i think this documentary would very stongly support beanie's view that pornography is as old as history iteself judging by the review and the few details it gives.

beanieb · 10/08/2008 21:47

I totally understand it. The victorians gave it the name and criminalised some acts. I know when they use the word 'invented' that it is just that they defined it within law and within 'society' not that they invented it!
A debate on semantics would probably go round in more circles than this one ...

onebatmother · 10/08/2008 21:48

it doesn't support that position, PT. It says that sexual imagery has been around since the beginning of time, as my previous post discusses.
I am absolutely positive about that

beanieb · 10/08/2008 22:02

Just because it wasn't given the name 'pornography' until the victorians tried to make moralistic judgements about it, doesn't mean imagery wasn't being used in the same way!

Or do you think that the Victorians really did invent pornography?

PinkTulips · 10/08/2008 22:07

pmsl.

your rally hate to be proven wrong don't you

sexual imagery is pornography/ pornography is sexual imagery

there is no differance between one and the other.

ancient indian cultures decorated their temples with thousands of statues depicting positions of sexual intercourse. they were graphic, explicit, very detailed and designed to please the eye and open the mind.

how is that not pornography.... what are they missing? a blonde with a made up name?

onebatmother · 10/08/2008 22:08

have you read my post?

toy23 · 10/08/2008 22:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

onebatmother · 10/08/2008 22:09

I was involved in the production of the series you mention, PT. I'm pretty clear on what it was about.

There is a huge difference betw sexual imagery and pornography

divastrop · 10/08/2008 22:10

'sexual imagery is pornography/ pornography is sexual imagery'

this is not my understanding of pornography.

onebatmother · 10/08/2008 22:10

unless you imagine worshipers wanking in temples?

toy23 · 10/08/2008 22:13

I hope any1 apart from Fatbob was not offended by my last post i dont like people giving my wife divastrop crap.

divastrop · 10/08/2008 22:14
Hmm
beanieb · 10/08/2008 22:15

"Pornographer is earliest form of the word attested from 1850" so in reality they were only creating a word to criminalise something which was already happening ... and more...

interesting read

beanieb · 10/08/2008 22:17

Toy23. Great argument you have there.
Perhaps your wife is as proud of you as FatBob's OH is of him.

onebatmother · 10/08/2008 22:20

Oh christ beanieb what is your point?

We were talking about its accessibility

Fatbob · 10/08/2008 22:21

im not offended at all.

welcome to the internets.

beanieb · 10/08/2008 22:22

Toy23 - I was offended. I accept your apology, but as far as I know it agains mumsnet policy to be abusive towards other posters. I thik you should say sorry for such a vile post. Or ask for it to be deleted.

toy23 · 10/08/2008 22:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

toy23 · 10/08/2008 22:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

beanieb · 10/08/2008 22:24

Are you telling me to go fuck myself ?

I will ask mumsnet to remove that post if you won't.