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.

i haven't actually seen her say much to refute him?

i've seen her defend him by saying she didn't get fatbob's 'idiot' post deleted.... not at any point has she told him to get lost herself or stated he's not her husband.

OBM-he is really my husband.

and i did report his posts.

anyway bed time for me now, got school in the morning..

oh. okay. blimey.

Are You Okay? move your eyes from right to left for yes, left to right for no.

right.i have learned my lesson.do NOT mention aloud any insults i may receive whilst debating on MN.

it aint worf it

pmsl at IQ lock on PC's

i think that would rule out 90% of microsofts business though, no?

onebat.... are you telling me that simply because they do not arouse you you can categorically state that the aim of the origional artists who painted the cave paintings was not to arouse? really, you had a chat with them about it?

and the paintings in pompeii were advertisemnts in brothels, depicting the acts perfomed and the prices of said acts... your saying they wouldn't have wanted to arouse the clientele with those paintings

the indian statues i can see your point, they were there for spiritual reasons and in their religion they considered these acts acts of worchip and spiritual healing and unification. however i would be surprised if the statues weren't there to educate on positions in order to perform these acts.... not merely art but a 3D kama sutra for people to enjoy and be educated by.

You see, I've learned something today. You can't win all the time. And if you don't win, you certainly can't hold it against the person who did, because that's the only way you ever really lose.

even if porn has been around since the dawn of time,what i dislike is the normalisation of degrading images of women one tends to see.you know, the 'dirty slut gags on huge cock' type stuff.i saw a disturbing photo on the front of one of the lads mags a while ago,of some d-list sleb with her hands tied and top ripped.those mags are on the shelves being sold as mainstream-thats what bothers me.

is that a quote from southpark,fatbob?

i dont know, im not old enough to watch TV

also i cant reach the remote anyway, and the drugs dont help, i never know where i am, make the rest up yourself, should be easy for you ;)

Diva - you say really on in the thread that you haven't got a problem with prostitution so long as it's the woman's choice to do it, and also that you think strippers, lapdancers etc are all prostitutes.

So is it just the acts which are depicted in the porn you see that you hate so much, rather than the profession?

you are wrong about pompeii. They were in brothels, yes. And dining rooms. Public spaces. the baths. Everywhere.

the cave paintings - no, not a chat. It's the general scholarly consensus though.

Likewise indian art. quite possibly to educate since sex (within certain very clearly defined boundaries) not frowned upone but celebrated, as with the romans. But not 'specifically to arouse', which is the definition of pornography.

But really, what is the point to this circular discussion? You are picking a very small element of this very broad debate to go over and over (and you've been wrong about it - or at least hold a very different opinion from the majority of researchers)

I am going to bed.

sorry - that should read 'really early'

night dear.

because we all know researchers always get it right in 100% of cases.

especially when those researchers have very clear ideas of what they want certain things to mean before they even begin. and when those researchers have fairly narrow minded views on sex and sexuality..... 'if it's ancient it must be artistic, couldn't possibly be pornographic you know, the ancients were far too classy for that nonsense, harrumph'

it was the general scholarly concensus that darwin was an idiot for a fair while as well.... it didn't make those scholars right.

it didn't make the scolars who thought the earth was the centre of the solar system right either funnily enough

or those scholars who claimed women weren't capable of free will and independant thought for a large part of the last few centuries... are those among the scholars you hold in such high regard?

whos Darwin was he in world of warcraft?

OBM: some of the sexually explicit pictures from Pompeii were designed to promote sexual arousal: as PT says, they were advertisements for brothels intended to stimulate and attract the customer.

Also: 'specifially to arouse' - you say that like it's a bad thing. Porn and sex work are bad when they involve the exploitation and abuse of people who have no choice but to participate: when the porn performers and sex workers have chosen to participate, that's a choice they have the right to make. Sex workers who have chosen to do the work make a clear distinction between the sexual contact they have agreed to, and abusive behaviour from customers. As to the wider social implications, the fetishisation of motherhood and the myth that women will do anything for 'love' (including the romanticisation of stalking) and worst of al the pervasive and still-effective idea that women don't need financial independence because men will support them in return for domestic service all do far more harm to both society and women than a few wanks. In an ideal, egalitarian world, there would still be sex work and pornography, because people would still want escapist fantasies from time to time, but sex workers would not be stigmatized any more than counsellors or alternative therapists, and a sex worker making a complaint about an abusive customer would not have to put up with the 'well what do you expect you drug-addled moronic whore' attitude but would be treated just like any other service industry professional who has been hurt or cheated or conned by a customer. And when my DS grows up and I get to explain sex work to him, I will explain to him that sex workers are human beings worthy of respect and so are their clients.

snort

and you are .. the copernicus of MN?

the difference is that academia these days is all about cultural analysis - ie looking at how and why things are perceived in certain ways by certain cultures. I think you are misguided if you believe there is a vast cultural plot going on. However, it is certainly your prerogative to believe that if you wish.

I really did not say 'specifically to arouse' as if it was a bad thing. I said it, without ascribing it any moral value either way, but simply because it was the definition of pornography which PT herself had offered up, and then contradicted with all her examples of ancient sexual imagery.

Tbh I could not give a fuck about this 'definition of pornography', beyond being irritated by PT's refusal or inability to follow an argument through.

You've made the following point many times SGB. Enough with the 'motherhood fetishization bad, therefore sex industry not bad' argument, it has no logic.

OBM the logic is: to make the world a better place for everyone, sort out the wider-ranging more damaging sexism first rather than blaming everything on the sex industry. The bad things about the sex industry come from general sexism rather than the sex industry being a cause of sexism.

who has blamed everything on the sex industry? I have specifically said that the sex industry is a mirror which reflects and magnifies (and, I believe, celebrates) the unequal power relations between men and women which exist in society.

no, but i believe you are being very narrow minded and naive about this issue.

do you really think that one day in victorian times the concept of looking at sexual images for entertainment was invented by someone?!

human beings are sexual creatures, our closest genetic relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos.

bonobos use sex as communictaion, as a way to settle arguements, as a way to relax, as entertainment and simply as a way of life.

female chimpanzees will 'prostitute' themselves for a nice piece of fruit.

we are instinctively and biologically a sexual species, one of only a few species that has sex for pleasure rather than simply to procreate.

do you honestly think that early man when he discovered he could make chalk scratchings and smears of pulped berries look like people and animals didn't perhaps think.... 'i like sex. i like drawing. i draw sex' ? i think your crediting primitive man with rather too much intelligance if you think he did it so that future generations could learn about his culture

oh mt. I wondered a while back.

Yes, the sex industry, like the rest of the entertainment industry, can reflect the sexism prevalent in society. But it isn't all about 'celebrating unequal power relations': paying for someone's time and attention is just that.