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.

"pornography" itself has become a handy epithet, a term hurled indiscriminately at any explicit image or text deemed sexually offensive. Pornography?s main purpose has always been to shock. In societies where the role of women was severely restricted, pornography transgressed social boundaries by often depicting female characters as self-empowered, sexual beings. While these early characterizations were almost always the expressions of male writers, they nonetheless underscore pornography?s role of inverting social norms and toying with established social order. A quick review of the last few hundred years would indicate that pornography has had an extremely important, if thankless role, in questioning authority and reflecting social angst about established sex roles"

Épater la bourgeoisie - huh. That really hasn't been its main purpose. Primarily it has been to arouse and stimulate, I reckon. The idea encapsulated in the above that it has a subversive role is fair enough, but if this is taken to mean that's what it does first and foremost I think I'd have to disagree.

well, in the thing I have just read it was often used as a political tool or against those in power as a tool to shock. It's all there in the article. I think the article does go on to state that later (victorian times and onwards) it was used much more just to arouse and stimulate, but this was not it's main purpose in the past, just one purpose.

"I would say that it is ultimately their choice and so long as they are not being exploited by anyone it's up to them."

The problem with this view is that it fails to take account of the fact that just because one woman is avoiding exploitation, many more aren't and can't. In other words she is complicit with a vast industry working to profit from, reinforce and even accentuate gendered inequalities.

There was a time when the notion that the personal is the political meant something. Now we're lucky if the average person can ever transcend their own personal proclivities in order to gauge what effects they are having, never mind how they may begin to resolve them through collective action. This kind of nihilistic solipsism often seems to be at its most prevalent in relation to porn.

"i see girls my dd's age wearing playboy clothing etc."

That really fucking sucks. The argos catalogue has PB pencil cases and god knows what. You don't have to fall into step with mary whitehouse to see how shitty that brand is, and the way it's emerged in the context of kids' stuff. Seriously - fuck that shite.

How rude!

Is this outburst for the same reasons as the last one you had?

I don't know the picture but was it painted JUST for titilation? I would actually feel ok about having that on my wall. It reminds me of Lucian Freud.

I haven't been rude Dittany! How? I haven't sworn or called people stupid goes back to chack just in case

Sorry - I took your comments to Swedes on face value as I haven't seen the other thread you are both in. Maybe it would just be better to ignore her if you know she is just trying to score points. It's better to walk away and maintain the high moral ground IMO.

nope - can't see where I was rude

was it when I said

"but I don't want to row with you, it's just a difference of opinion. I doubt you can persuade me to change what I think and I am sure I can't change what you think.

It's good to debate though."

or when I said

"perhaps we have both strayed into an argument we weren't actually having because we are both so detwrmined that our point of view is the right one? "

By dittany on Sun 10-Aug-08 17:58:17
"You know artists have probably been some of the strongest communicators of what is regarded as beauty in our society but I don't think I've ever seen a close-up of somebody's breasts, bum or crotch (which is the visual in lap-dancing) promoted as beautiful or visually interesting. Unless of course we think that people who photocopy their bums at the office Xmas party are at the cutting edge of art."

Dittany - I posted the link of the Origine du Monde painting in response to your post above. Now you complain that the close-up doesn't have a face.

Is there any need to be so rude?

"Well if you'd leave me alone too that would be two less people on a wind-up mission I'd have to deal with, beanie.

You already took something I said out of context just to try and score a pointless point yesterday. I actually think sneakiness like that is a lot ruder than just coming out with it directly because it's rude and its also disguised, so when a person objects to it they are the one accused of being rude. How about you taking the moral high ground and actually engaging with what's been said rather than trying to twist things like you did earlier, or making an argument instead of asking series of endless questions like you have done throughout the thread? "

oh hang on this is a forum where there is debate. Your point of view has at times been different to mine. So we have debated and discussed and got tangled up in semantics at times but I am not deliberately trying to wind you up. The point we argued about over the weekend was one which I was interested in, so I got into that conversation a bit more only for you to tell me that I was wrong and I was not sticking to the point of the argument, so I moved on. I continued it this morning because of posts made by other people who were continuing to debate that particular thing.

I am aware that I tend to bombard people with questions, it's the way I am. I guess I find it frustrating when people don't answer them so I do tend to ask them again as it's important for me to be able to clarify what people are saying so I can actually have a debate. Particularly when people tell me I am debating the 'wrong' thing.

Believe me, I am not being Rude and I am not being sneaky and I am not picking on you. You clearly believe I am winding you up. I can absolutely state this is not my intention.

we need an ignore button

Dittany - that is fine. If you would rather I ignore your posts on this thread then I will (Obviously with the exception of the last one ) though I wouldn't want to extend that to the whole of Mumsnet because as far as I can tell it's only this issue which has caused us to clash.

Am still confused about if you think I have rude or if you just don't like the way I debate. Hopefully I have made it clear to other posters and to you that I have not been Rude, and nor have I deliberately or attempted to wind you up. However I can see that you are for some reason. It was not my intention to do so, I will think twice before responding to future posts you make on this topic.

I think this idea that the women who choose sex work are somehow responsible for the behaviour of rapists and the exploitation of other women in the industry who didn't choose the work, really sucks. Exploitation and people-trafficking are absolutely rife in the catering industry, but this is not seen as the fault of people who choose catering as a career. They are not expected to feel guilty or justify themselves, nor are restaurant customers condemned for not checking the working conditions in the restaurant kitchen and/or the conditions under which the food they eat was harvested.

Just like most of the problems associated with the drug trade stem from the illegality of the drug trade (put something in the hands of criminals only and you will get more crime) the long history of stigmatizing sex, women's sexual choice and sex work all contribute to the problems that occur in the sex industry.

"Exploitation and people-trafficking are absolutely rife in the catering industry, but this is not seen as the fault of people who choose catering as a career. They are not expected to feel guilty or justify themselves, nor are restaurant customers condemned for not checking the working conditions in the restaurant kitchen and/or the conditions under which the food they eat was harvested."

I don't think as many people want to get out of the catering industry as those who want to get out of, e.g., prostitution.

depends on how many people are in the catering profession compared to prostitution ;) And of course we'd have to strictly define what 'the catering profession' is and who it includes, that's once we've defined what 'prostitution' is

I am still at a loss to see the arguement for sex work in 2008 with roots in the 1850s, cave paintings and/or Marquis de sade. Women in this country are sent 'home' for circumcision (sp) because this is an activity with 'roots'. Just because something has a history it doesn't mean it is natural, nature's way or right and just.

BTW, I don't think cooking a burger is comparable to getting your clothes of for a group of letcherous twats.

I'm not sure that anyone is arguing people should be ok with it because it's been around for ages though. It was more a derailment about accessability, history of etc, I think it came up also because of the discussion about what men are turned on by, about visual stimulation ... and why men are turned on by the naked form. That's how I understood it anyway

I think there was a discussion about how it's not a natural thing for men but a learned thing and so someone aske why have men used porn for so long then? Or something like that...